Sony 200-600G vs Sony 100-400GM+1.4x SHOOTOUT!! Which is better? 

sound off for me, very soothing

No talk, in fact.

Prince Hey! Nice to meet you again on RU-vid! Cheers!

Eli The 100-400 is an amazing lens by itself. The closeup sharpness is excellent. I love it! The 1.4x could come in handy in situations when longer reach is required in the absence of an alternative.

Eli. I used my 100 - 400 G Master for close up shots of butterflies when I could not get close enought with my 90mm macro lens. The minumum focusing distance of the 100 - 400 is amazing. Having sold it, I am now getting used to the 2.4m minimum focusing distance of the 200 - 600mm. I have to keep looking behind me in case I walk backwards into the river/canal. Nevertheless, the detail at 2.4m is still very good, if not quite on a par with the 100 - 400mm. It works beautifully with my A9 and I think it will be incredible with the new A7RIV for close up shots.

If there was an only choice between the two, I would pick the 100-400GM without the 1.4x. That said, in the situation of the night stadium you described, a 300/2.8 will be my choice if it was available.

The use of 1.4x in a stadium at might isn’t a good idea. Your 100-400 bare lens would be better if you can use 1/250 with ISO not exceeding 3200. Minimum shutter speed for humans in sport is 1/250. If you find your pictures a bit too noisy at higher ISO, there is good software program called Topaz that can help.

Dmitry Brodsky Thanks for your comments. Mode 3 was used with shutter speeds of 1/3200 and above for BIF. Mode 3 is said to used for action shots, this not found in my Sony 100-400Gm. My canon 100-400 IIL also has three modes like the 2-6. Swans were static and all EXIF are available in the few shots in my Smugmug account. Now that I have my own copy of d 2-6, I have the luxury to do more test without hurry. Will load more examples in did course.

Charles Mann Yes, the a7riv 61mp certainly allows for great cropping!

Charles Mann. I agree: It will also provide greater detail when cropping in FF. I am considering replacing my A7III with an A7RIV in about 12 months. Additionally, it has a far better EV and better AF. It sounds like the perfect match for my A9.

Viktor Skalican Thank you, Viktor! Good question. The instruction manual recommends that the IS should be turned off when using a tripod which is an indication that the IS remains on. Yes, this Instruction was not on the 100-400 manual. Not being a tripod user myself , I was curious to test it out. With the IS on, I still get very sharp photos at 1/5 sec just like with the IS off. However, there were a couple of times when, with the IS on, there appears to be double images. I would suppose this has to do with IS not automatically becoming inactive on a tripod as opposed to the 100-400.

@@NaturalWorldChew Well thank you. I would like to use it mainly for video.

Yeah! Hope you get it soon. Enjoy!

I would have t see his shutter speeds to really make that determination. Could be the user causing that difference in sharpness

They are so similar I really wouldn't call one sharper

Donovan Kage Thanks, Donovan!

pete draper I think Sony nailed it with this lens. Enjoy!

Not having used the A7riii, I would not be the best person to comment. But that said, my research tells me that the 42mp beast seems a tad noisier than the a7iii (24mp) at between half to one stop at high ISOs. That’s still pretty awesome for such a huge MP camera. AF wise, I believe it performs credibly, though it can’t match up to the a9. If I have to make just one positive point about the a7r3 with the 200-600 combo, it would be the crop factor. You are having to a field of view equivalent to a 900mm (600 x 1.5) at 18 mp instead of 10 mp wort the a7iii or a9. Again that said, and yes teleconverters are helpful, I believe that getting close is always the best option. Better than crop or teleconverters. For all intent and purposes, I believe the a7riii wasn’t designed specifically for speed but for making large enlargements, say, in the area of commercial advertising posters, etc. Landscape photographers will find it very useful, too. Then again, there are many excellent action shots taken with a7r3. If you are concerned with noise, it would be better to go with a7iii or a9. The recently announced a7r4 has a fairly robust AF but it is a bit of an overkill for most applications. Besides it gets a bit noisier at higher ISOs.

sandeep uttamchandani Ultimately, it’s a matter of personal preference. If you prefer a smaller, more portable package, then the 100-400 with the 1.4x may be your answer. The 100-400+1.4x is more portable when it comes to putting it into a bag, not that the 2-6 is that inconvenient. Experienced photographers will notice that the 100-400 G Master is a tad faster in AF acquisition, even with the 1.4x attached, the AF performance is excellent and usually very decisive. It’s driven by a pair of double linear motors. And the IQ is great with or without the 1.4x. Sony doesn’t go into the details of the 200-600 AF motor, except to say it’s equipped with “Sony’s Direct Drive SSM (DDSSM) focusing system”. It’s most likely a new single linear motor system for this lens. It locks on and tracks quite effectively in my experience and I took this on a trip to Thailand today, leaving the 1-4 at home. You need to understand your lens; every lens has its strength and weaknesses, and with a little experience, you can capture some super shots! The super high end 400/2.8 and 600/4 use a pair of the new powerful XD linear motor. It’s often said that the 200-600 doesn’t require this super high end motor system.

@@NaturalWorldChew thank you so much for a comprehensive reply. You made my choice simpler 😊. I might go for 100-400 with 1.4x as that 100 mm focal length is not worth sacrificing when the results are same with better focusing on 100-400

sandeep uttamchandani I am glad you have made a decision. Hope you will get done great shots!

@@sandeeputtamchandani3907 You should probably also consider the short zoom turn. 1/4 turn is excellent to go from 200-600mm. That makes it really easy to cover a lot of range, quickly. Really helps with birds in flight. I have a 400mm 2.8 and I have to carry another body and the 70-200mm... Almost worth it for the quality, but I'm getting older.

Peter Yu Thanks for your comments. I am actually quite surprised by the performance of the 1.4x on the 2-6. Whilst it’s not quite like 1-4+1.4x, I can say that I would use it if necessary. Of course, as you may already know, there is some slight performance difference in view of the fact that 1.4x on the 2-6, you are approaching f9!

sai kishan You are most welcome!

Jean François Roederer I am glad you found it useful! Yes, it’s time to go mirrorless for that’s the future. If you are after speed, a9 is the way to go.

I am thinking of doing the same, buy the A9 and 200-600 and give it a test then possibly sell my Canon gear then buy a Sony macro lens also.

Tom's lille hjørne Yes, it’s very wise for you to do advanced planning. 100-400 is smaller at the shortest zoom of 100mm so choice of bags is easier. But in actual fact, the 200-600 is not that unwieldy as the 400/2.8 or 600/4. It’s so versatile and quite portable. Any reasonable sized backpack camera bag should be able to accommodate the 200-600. And they not terribly expensive. I will be loading a short video on bags for the 200-600 in the next 48 hours. I have an old camera bag that accepts the 200-600 with lenshood inverted easily. Bag of this type of design are ideal. I have loaded the photo on my Smugmug account here: naturalworldchew.smugmug.com/Lens-testing/Sony-200-600-G-VS-100-400-GM-shootout/i-rbFTjt9

@@NaturalWorldChew a big thank to you for helping out:) gonna check that

@@tomslittlecorner Much appreciated. Cheers!

Yes, that was a 20-shot burst compiled into a quick sequence.

Stefan1968ful Good tip, thanks for your input!

Stefan1968ful That’s why I just bought the A6400 for my upcoming 200600.

Thanks for that input. It seems most are testing the lens on the most expensivem full frame cameras and forgetting the mass who shoot with 24mp, lower cost cameras.

Larry Sullivan Well, APS-C is ideal for Wildlife. That has nothing to do with cost. I use the 200-600mm on an A9 and A6400 as well. Before using a teleconverter, I prefer an APS-C such as the A6400.

Larry Sullivan The a6400 (or a6500, a6300) will definitely be a very useful body to included in the bag, especially with that 1.5x crop factor. So far we haven’t gotten any concrete news on a stacked sensor aps-c model. The A9 does spoil you with the no blackouts and high frame rate (when needed). I have enjoyed the A7iii over a year and shot many good action pictures, while I have not shot the a6400 on the 2-6, I am sure the real time AF (and overall improved AF) will yield some great shooting experience.

With no converter.

Hope you will get yours soon and start shooting. I got mine three weeks and enjoying it. Haven’t used much of the 1-4 but will keep it. Glad you found the video useful!

Biswajit Ray Sure. The A7iii is a capable nature photography camera. Just that at 10 fps, there is a lag in that you can’t use what the last shot was. At 8 fps you can keep up. The AF is very good and works well with both the Sony 100-400 and Sony 200-600. I use it a lot to capture birds in flight and it works.

@@NaturalWorldChew thank you so much sir 😊

Biswajit Ray You are most welcome. If you have any questions, just ask. All the best.

@@NaturalWorldChew ok sir 😊

Steve P Yes, any frontal approaching bird poses a challenge for a camera’s AF system.

I agree. I decided to go with the 100-400 with 1.4 converter. Amazing results and it packs niceley into my camera bag.

Joachim Kusche 😆