I chose the 100-400 gm over the 200-600, and im starting to regret it. Help plz. *a7r4 related

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
thiefofpresence Contributing Member • Posts: 862
Re: I chose the 100-400 gm over the 200-600, and im starting to regret it. Help plz. *a7r4 related

Tr3v420 wrote:

I love taking pictures of BIF. Is it the only thing i do? No, i like to take portraits of my son and wife, landscapes and macro even.

But right now, BIF is what i enjoy most. I can spend all day at the Conowingo Dam just for that magical shot for them flying at me with a fish in their talons or them actually fishing it (which i havent gotten yet).

I traded in my D850 and 200-500 nikkor when i decided to buy the A7r4 because i wanted the best of both worlds, AF that was accurate for BIF, high MP for further cropping, and great eye AF for my wife and child. I felt like the A7r4 offered me this.

And it does.

What it does not offer is the assurance that a 2000 dollar lens is going to work properly on my brand new body from the same company. I was terrified by all the reports that the 200-600 from sony didnt function properly for birds in flight and sometimes even back focuses on static subjects. And because of this, it was a huge deciding factor of me buying the 500 dollars more expensive, 100-400mm.

Being as i was coming from a 500mm lens on a 45mp body, i thought a 400mm would be equal to what i had before. And it might be.

But gosh darn, would i love an extra 200mm@ 6.3. I know i can slap on the 1.4TC and get 560, but thats at f8 and i read there is a sharpness loss compared to the 200-600 at 6.3.
I had the option of going a9+200-600mm which works splendid, and im starting to regret not getting it.

Ive read that the AF in the A7r4 is just as sticky when it does find the subject, though a9 is obv quicker to obtain said focus. This would mean that when the 200-600 gets updated, i could buy it then and it be a better combo than the a9+200-600.

My fear is that will never happen. Sony has yet to recognize the issue with the A7r4+200-600 combo, which means theres been no promise of a fix.

Does anyone have experience with the A7r4 and either of these lenses that could make me feel better about my choice or help persuade me to trade in my 100-400gm for the 200-600mm despite the issues?

Thanks for reading this guys, take care!

Both. Admittedly, quite the excess, but when I am birding, I absolutely positively want 200-600 and have the 1.4x extender for applications where that matters.

But for a "midrange" / "walkabout" zoom, I would never carry 200-600 all day long for that. Not that 100-400 is a compact solution, but its the largest I could imagine swinging on a long hike all day long.

I have tried the 1.4 extender on 100-400 and without any doubt I prefer the 200-600 native for those applications, although that should be no surprise.

I would settle into and happily use 100-400 in many ocassions where 200-600 will be a prohibitive thing to pack and lug around, unless you have to have it, and then - there is no substitute.

Except for an f/4 pr f/2.8 super telephoto prime, but as they say, in morality and art, it all comes down to where you draw the line...

-- hide signature --

Sony A9ii | Sony FE 20/1.8 G; Minolta M-Rokkor 28/2.8; Sony FE 35/1.8; Sigma 45/2.8 C; Sony Sonnar 55/1.8; Samyang AF 85/1.4; Sigma 70/2.8 Macro Art | Sigma 24-70/2.8 Art; Sony FE 24-105/4 G; Tamron 28-200; Tamron 70-180/2.8; Sony FE 100-400 GM; Sony FE 200-600 G;

 thiefofpresence's gear list:thiefofpresence's gear list
Sony a9 II Sony 1.4x Teleconverter Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 Sigma 70mm F2.8 DG Macro Art +9 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow