Is the 100-400GM better and faster than 200-600 in AF?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Hibiscusbloom
Hibiscusbloom Regular Member • Posts: 366
Is the 100-400GM better and faster than 200-600 in AF?

Anyone? Thanks.

Richard M Contributing Member • Posts: 552
Re: Is the 100-400GM better and faster than 200-600 in AF?

I doubt enough people have received there 200-600 to be able to know yet.

-- hide signature --

Regards
Richard

 Richard M's gear list:Richard M's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R IV Sony RX100 Sony a6000 Sony a6400 +16 more
JRP64
JRP64 Contributing Member • Posts: 844
Re: Is the 100-400GM better and faster than 200-600 in AF?
1

I just got mine yesterday and I find it easier to take the pictures with it as for it being better than the 100-400GM (I have own this for awhile now) it's going to take me a couple of weeks to come up with a conclusion.

As of right now here are the pros and cons of the 200-600 compared to the 100-400.

The AF seems faster on the 200-600, but you have to sacrifice a little be in the ISO department to get that. So if you the type of person who tries to compare with almost identical specs then the 100-400 would be the clear winner, but knowing the aperture was a tad higher on 200-600 negates that for me and that is why I say the AF seems a little quicker on the 200-600.

While the image quality on the 200-600 is really good it doesn't beat the 100-400 even with a teleconverter attached to the 100-400. I kind of expected that, but I bought the 200-600 for the extra reach.

As a walking around lens the 100-400 is the clear winner as the 200-600 is definitely heavier and more awkward to lug around with. Though the 200-600 still isn't too bad and I like the fact that it has an internal zoom. However, like I said I come up with a better answer when I have taken more pictures with the 200-600. I was going to sell one of them, but I think I'll be keeping both as I think I still use the 100-400 on my Sony A7RIII camera when I need extra resolution and for tad better image quality.

 JRP64's gear list:JRP64's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony a9 Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro +5 more
Colin Smith1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,063
Re: Is the 100-400GM better and faster than 200-600 in AF?

I got my 200-600 yesterday and I am returning it today.  Just too heavy to use without a tripod.  At the age of 72 with two shoulder surgeries, I like the portability of the 100-400 with a 1.4 X.

-- hide signature --

Colin Smith

 Colin Smith1's gear list:Colin Smith1's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus M.Zuiko 300mm F4 IS Pro Panasonic 8-18mm F2.8-4 Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro +4 more
MILC man Senior Member • Posts: 3,519
they are both rated at 20fps af-c on the a9

maybe there will be a different af-c speed rating, with the a9 replacement.

Hibiscusbloom
OP Hibiscusbloom Regular Member • Posts: 366
Re: they are both rated at 20fps af-c on the a9

Much appreciated for all your replies. I will wait and see.

idhardy Forum Member • Posts: 81
Re: Is the 100-400GM better and faster than 200-600 in AF?
4

I've had my 200-600 now for a few weeks and have shot several airshows with it. Really pleased with it. AF performance on A7Riii, I found to be very good (lock on tracking mode) - better than with 100-400GM (not sure if this was the lens or latest FW?). I think you need to go to the GM primes (135/400/600mm) to get quicker AF. Use of the focus range limiter helps.

Image quality seems very good (similar to 100-400, in the 200-400 range and superior than with the 1.4X converter above this).

The internal zoom and very smooth, short travel on the 200-600 is fantastic, easy to support camera and lens and just use one finger to adjust zoom, this is much better than the 100-400GM.

I also think the OSS is better on the 200-600G. In particular I like having the mode 3 for erratic moving subjects, missed that feature when I went from the Canon 100-400II to the Sony version.

Yes, the 200-600G is heavier, though somehow I've not noticed it as much as I thought I would in use and shot with it for 6 days at the Royal International Air Tattoo, Fairford UK, all hand held. Despite having the 100-400GM with me I wasn't tempted to swap back. The only time I find its size/weight an issue is when selecting a bag to carry it in.

In my view the 200-600 is only a G in order to differentiate it from the 400 and 600 primes, compared to the rest of the range it deserves a GM designation. Though I'm grateful they kept it a mere G, as I'm sure this kept the price down.

I will be keeping my 100-400GM, it's a great lens, having the 100-200mm part of the range can be useful, as can the much closer minimum focus distance. Though I suspect the 200-600G will be my default airshow lens.

Photos @ https://hzone.smugmug.com/Airshows/2019/RIAT (I'm still processing & organising these)

-- hide signature --

Ian

 idhardy's gear list:idhardy's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 Sony 2x Teleconverter (2016) Sony 1.4x Teleconverter +7 more
Rick Knepper
Rick Knepper Forum Pro • Posts: 17,417
Re: Is the 100-400GM better and faster than 200-600 in AF?

JRP64 wrote:

I just got mine yesterday and I find it easier to take the pictures with it as for it being better than the 100-400GM (I have own this for awhile now) it's going to take me a couple of weeks to come up with a conclusion.

As of right now here are the pros and cons of the 200-600 compared to the 100-400.

The AF seems faster on the 200-600, but you have to sacrifice a little be in the ISO department to get that. So if you the type of person who tries to compare with almost identical specs then the 100-400 would be the clear winner, but knowing the aperture was a tad higher on 200-600 negates that for me and that is why I say the AF seems a little quicker on the 200-600.

While the image quality on the 200-600 is really good it doesn't beat the 100-400 even with a teleconverter attached to the 100-400. I kind of expected that, but I bought the 200-600 for the extra reach.

Can you provide a side by side comparison? In the following comparison, the opposite seems to be true.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62975800

As a walking around lens the 100-400 is the clear winner as the 200-600 is definitely heavier and more awkward to lug around with. Though the 200-600 still isn't too bad and I like the fact that it has an internal zoom. However, like I said I come up with a better answer when I have taken more pictures with the 200-600. I was going to sell one of them, but I think I'll be keeping both as I think I still use the 100-400 on my Sony A7RIII camera when I need extra resolution and for tad better image quality.

-- hide signature --

Once you've done fifty, anything less is iffy.

 Rick Knepper's gear list:Rick Knepper's gear list
Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS R Fujifilm GFX 50S Sony a7R IV Fujifilm GF 23mm F4 +10 more
Reto B
Reto B Contributing Member • Posts: 923
Re: Is the 100-400GM better and faster than 200-600 in AF?
2

Watch Mark Galer's very balanced and well-conceived review of the 200-600 G where he also points out the major differences and pros and cons when compared to the 100-400 GM (+ TC 1.4) and he also adresses and compares the AF:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR_s8DRWh6U

 Reto B's gear list:Reto B's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro Sony FE 24mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM +7 more
BigBen08 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,366
Re: thanks Ian, these are great!

idhardy wrote:

I've had my 200-600 now for a few weeks and have shot several airshows with it. Really pleased with it. AF performance on A7Riii, I found to be very good (lock on tracking mode) - better than with 100-400GM (not sure if this was the lens or latest FW?). I think you need to go to the GM primes (135/400/600mm) to get quicker AF. Use of the focus range limiter helps.

Image quality seems very good (similar to 100-400, in the 200-400 range and superior than with the 1.4X converter above this).

The internal zoom and very smooth, short travel on the 200-600 is fantastic, easy to support camera and lens and just use one finger to adjust zoom, this is much better than the 100-400GM.

I also think the OSS is better on the 200-600G. In particular I like having the mode 3 for erratic moving subjects, missed that feature when I went from the Canon 100-400II to the Sony version.

Yes, the 200-600G is heavier, though somehow I've not noticed it as much as I thought I would in use and shot with it for 6 days at the Royal International Air Tattoo, Fairford UK, all hand held. Despite having the 100-400GM with me I wasn't tempted to swap back. The only time I find its size/weight an issue is when selecting a bag to carry it in.

In my view the 200-600 is only a G in order to differentiate it from the 400 and 600 primes, compared to the rest of the range it deserves a GM designation. Though I'm grateful they kept it a mere G, as I'm sure this kept the price down.

I will be keeping my 100-400GM, it's a great lens, having the 100-200mm part of the range can be useful, as can the much closer minimum focus distance. Though I suspect the 200-600G will be my default airshow lens.

Photos @ https://hzone.smugmug.com/Airshows/2019/RIAT (I'm still processing & organising these)

I'm also interested in this lens for air shows, so your post helps. Thanks!

And your photos are amazing! Very sharp and detailed.

I'm currently using a Canon 5D4 and Canon 300 f2.8 IS II lens, usually with the 1.4x.  I want to try Sony's 200-600 with the A6400. It looks like a winning combo.

-- hide signature --

My best aviation photos: https://500px.com/kenfm2018

Arcimboldo Regular Member • Posts: 408
Re: Is the 100-400GM better and faster than 200-600 in AF?

Rick Knepper wrote:

JRP64 wrote:

I just got mine yesterday and I find it easier to take the pictures with it as for it being better than the 100-400GM (I have own this for awhile now) it's going to take me a couple of weeks to come up with a conclusion.

As of right now here are the pros and cons of the 200-600 compared to the 100-400.

The AF seems faster on the 200-600, but you have to sacrifice a little be in the ISO department to get that. So if you the type of person who tries to compare with almost identical specs then the 100-400 would be the clear winner, but knowing the aperture was a tad higher on 200-600 negates that for me and that is why I say the AF seems a little quicker on the 200-600.

While the image quality on the 200-600 is really good it doesn't beat the 100-400 even with a teleconverter attached to the 100-400. I kind of expected that, but I bought the 200-600 for the extra reach.

Can you provide a side by side comparison? In the following comparison, the opposite seems to be true.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62975800

And also in this one:
https://www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-fe-200-600-vs-fe-100-400-gm/

 Arcimboldo's gear list:Arcimboldo's gear list
Sony a7R Sony a7R III Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS +4 more
Rick Knepper
Rick Knepper Forum Pro • Posts: 17,417
Re: Is the 100-400GM better and faster than 200-600 in AF?

Arcimboldo wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

JRP64 wrote:

I just got mine yesterday and I find it easier to take the pictures with it as for it being better than the 100-400GM (I have own this for awhile now) it's going to take me a couple of weeks to come up with a conclusion.

As of right now here are the pros and cons of the 200-600 compared to the 100-400.

The AF seems faster on the 200-600, but you have to sacrifice a little be in the ISO department to get that. So if you the type of person who tries to compare with almost identical specs then the 100-400 would be the clear winner, but knowing the aperture was a tad higher on 200-600 negates that for me and that is why I say the AF seems a little quicker on the 200-600.

While the image quality on the 200-600 is really good it doesn't beat the 100-400 even with a teleconverter attached to the 100-400. I kind of expected that, but I bought the 200-600 for the extra reach.

Can you provide a side by side comparison? In the following comparison, the opposite seems to be true.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62975800

And also in this one:
https://www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-fe-200-600-vs-fe-100-400-gm/

Thanks. Good comparison and easy to follow.

Kind of clear that I made the right choice (admittedly sight unseen at the time) for a lens without needing a TC would beat out one that needs a TC but I am surprised it beats the 100-400 @ 400mm straight up.

-- hide signature --

Once you've done fifty, anything less is iffy.

 Rick Knepper's gear list:Rick Knepper's gear list
Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS R Fujifilm GFX 50S Sony a7R IV Fujifilm GF 23mm F4 +10 more
///M Contributing Member • Posts: 759
I cannot tell if there is a difference in AF speed or IQ

The focus speed is not lacking, the zooming is easier as the lens does not extend. The IQ is not noticeably different, though have not done extensive testing side by side yet. The IS on the 200-600 is very good, even using on the non-IBIS a6400, was shooting 1/125 in daylight at 600 and getting good images.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads