This camera is growing on me

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Guy Churchward
OP Guy Churchward Regular Member • Posts: 456
Thoughts on DOF between 100-400 and 200-600 for my use
1

barb_s wrote:

Guy,

I've read your threads with the focus earlier. Now that you have a heavier lens, are you able to hand hold with it or are you doing mainly tripod work?

I'm really impressed with the difference you are getting now with the 200-600. (Also , this one is really cool)

I've got an A7R4 on order and am now deciding on a bird lens.

It’s all handheld... I have a tripod and monopod but I still like the flexibility of being able to shoot around quickly.... likely I will go birding with a monopod when I take the day to do it properly...

‘I have just sold the 100-400 and settled on the 200-600... This isn’t to say I didn’t like the 100-400 but for ‘my’ uses and with what else I have I felt it was redundant...

here’s my take

1. I don’t notice a drop in image quality from the 100-400 to the 200-600 so qual on par

2. The 100-400 is good for around the garden and epic for a zoo but I feel the more length you have the less you will need to crop and the cleaner the image would be on a small bird.

3. I do honestly think the 1.4x responds better with a 200-600.. on the 100-400 it felt degrading, on the 200-600 it feels a consistent extension

4. This is the biggest one for me that nobody talks about ... I can put a camo sleeve on the 200-600 much easier as it’s a fixed tube length rather than the 100-400 that’s clunky at best.. The birds in our garden are really jumpy (outdoor feral friendly cat present) so with me waving a giant white tube around, I feel this will give me a chance to get nearer (proof in pudding it arrives this week)

5. 100-400 1.4x was ~560.... 200-600 ~ 840... that’s a large difference when you are shooting a bird the size of of a golf ball at full stretch....

6. I have the 90m macro which covers that advantage the 100-400 has or which it performs ImO better than at the top end

7. AF is fine, haven’t noticed the degradation of speed impacting me

so disadvantages

1. There is no escaping you are the paparazzi

2. It’s noticeably heavier..... I could take the 100-400 on a casual walk but the 200-600 feels more deliberate

3. Full stretch into a wooded area that has low light feels like the 100-400 performance better

4. Min length of focus.. caught a couple of times where a curious bird sprints in and lands close and I have no chance to get a shot off...

...

so perhaps I should have kept them both but I haven’t used used the 100-400 at all since I bought the longer lens...

therefore if I were you and looking for a bird lens I don’t think the 100-400 holds a candle to the 200-600..

however, if you want a versatile lens, want to do some close up work, pop to the zoo, photo a kids ball game and do some occasional bird pics then go with the 100-400

400gm and 600gm (yes I would love one if they were sub 10k) are too expensive for my amateur needs... I had the 70-300 (something like that) and the image quality is nowhere near the lenses I mentioned above...

hope that helps... not a technical review and my own personal feelings on the transition

Guy

 Guy Churchward's gear list:Guy Churchward's gear list
Sony RX100 II Sony a7R IV Sony 1.4x Teleconverter Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro +2 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow