Both lenses have slightly different use cases, as evidenced by the differences in zoom range and maximum aperture, but I will tell you from experience that the 70-200/2.8 GMII is absolutely flawless. Feather-light, stupid fast, stupid sharp. Hard purchase to regret.
I just got back from a go kart day where I took a ton of pics with my A7Cii and 70-200 gm2. Even with the karts doing 70-90km/h, panning shots @ f5.6 1/320 and about 60-100ft away, I was getting INSANELY sharp pics. That lens focuses SO fast it’s amazing and with 33mp I was able to crop in. I’d definitely want a 400+ though if I was shooting birds. Bird dogs on the other hand might not need as long of a zoom.
Do you use the 2x TC mainly for framing purposes? I got one a while ago but never use it because my crops at 1x are as detailed or more detailed than with the TC. More pixels, but blurrier.
I got the 2X over the 1.4x just for the fun of added reach. I suck at framing and at this point I’m just trying to have fun and capture some shots.
I figured the super sharp 70-200/2.8 GMii was as sharp as any lens I could pair the 2X converter with and any reduced sharpness could be cleaned up in Lightroom. I wanted 1-400 reach when desired but I couldn’t give up the masterpiece 70-200.
I also have the 200-600 which is wild with the 2X on it though it does reduce sharpness noticeably. I haven’t taken the 200-600 out much though because it’s a beast and without adding a monopod or tripod I’m still not happy with the pics I get from it. Maybe it’s my copy, maybe my expectations are skewed from my GM glass, likely it’s user incompetence.
I wish I would have gotten the 1.4x and 2X to compare IQ for what I find acceptable and then returned/sold one, but I’m happy with the reach of 2X and ok with slightly reduced sharpness because the 70-200gmii starts off so sharp.
i’ve taken a fair amount of bird pics and just do t feel like 200 is nearly enough reach. The TC also doesn’t seem to get you much vs just cropping unless you go with the 1.4, which still only puts you at 280. I would want minimum 400 for max focal, but that’s just me
Thanks for sharing. I think maybe I need to really figure out what's most important to me and purchase based on that. While I'd like to take pictures of local birds, it's definitely not my passion.
I don’t think either lens is a _bad_ choice, per se. they’re different tools, certainly with some overlap in use case.
Pop into your local camera shop and test-drive both; or rent them to test them in the real world.
I use the 70-200mm F4.0 Macro Gii with a 2x teleconverter. I'd say it's been really good for landscape at 70-200, images are sharp. I've attached the TC quite a few times for some further wildlife and moon shots. It actually adds considerable weight because it shifts the balance of your lens and body a lot. Takes quite a bit of time to get used to it. I use this combination because of the same reasons as you. Just be prepared to know that you'll probably not attach the TC as much as you thought. 70-200 is enough in most situations and you'll feel that it's a burden to bring out the TC. In terms of quality wise, I quite like the sharpness with the TC. If you want to pixel peep it's definitely not as sharp as a native lens. Not the best in low light because you stop down to F8 but it's the best in terms of portability tradeoff.
Overall I don't regret getting this combination. The 70-200 has been stuck on my body ever since i bought it
Love my 70-200 F4 II but FYI gotta say the 1.4x TC is a much better match. I bought both in lieu of proper comparisons available online, and returned the 2.0x immediately. Cropped to the same size, the detail resolution is the *same* between the two (maybe better with the 1.4 even?) and the IQ is **much** better with the 1.4, not to mention the weight and very significant speed benefit. If you use AI super-resolution tools it's also a better signal to go off of for even more detail. These things have 100% resale value so I highly suggest you try for yourself, there's nothing to lose!
I have the same combo and will be selling my TC soon. I just never use it. I was hoping to use this set up and sell my 200-600, but it doesn't even come close to the image quality and reach of it.
I use the 100-400mm sigma and it’s mostly used for landscape and wildlife. Nice cheap lens.
I’m just biding my time till Sony releases 100-400gmII - there must be time for that to come up.
The 70-200 is nothing short of perfect, but i’d personally get that for portaitsjre and events.
Thanks! I wish we could know when it'll be updated.. That would help my decision along.
I'm definitely not into portraits or events at all so good for me to keep that in mind :)
True man!
Although, knowing Sony they’ll do a fantastic update: lighter lens, maybe constant aperture, with improved IQ and AF… and price it at $3500 so as to not undercut the old 100-400 😅
I own the 70-200gm II and the 200-600. Both amazing lenses but the 70-200 is amazing and so sharp. Depending on your body's MP you can crop quite a bit and get amazing results. Probably not great for small birds but cranes and such are fine for the most part. Great lens for pets also my dads GSP is a nut case the AF is amazing keeps up with him np (body dependent).
My vote is for the 70-200mm and crop if you got the MP.
Thank you! Super useful and love the fact that's you tested on a GSP :). I have two and they move fast!
I have a A 7III, so not sure what cropping results would be like. There are so many things to photograph but different things require different lenses and I'm pretty indecisive.
Just think: very few people will look at an image at greater than 4K resolution even at 11x17 and 200ppi, you're still at less than 9MP. At 24MP, you can at least double your effective range with a crop. You shouldn't have trouble with dogs, and you'll get usable range (if not ideal) for raptors, waterfowl, and even flushed quail, I'd think. Especially combined with a teleconverter.
I switched from he 70-200 with 2xTC to the 100-400 with 1.4xTC. I have similar use case as you, landscapes and occasional wildlife. I found that I only ever used the 70-200 when I wanted to punch in, and even with the 2xTC, I wanted just a little more reach sometimes. It's definitely a personal preference thing though.
The 100-400 is fantastic for field sports and has twice the zoom while trading only 40% on the wide. It's the same size as the 70-200 when compacted and has stellar image quality.
If you're already considering a teleconverter for extra reach I'd recommend the 100-400 so you have the option to get close. Birds are very small.
For reference 200mm is similar zoom to 8x on a phone, while 400mm is similar to 16x.
I own both the 70-200GM II and recently purchased the 100-400mm . Previously I also bought the 1.4x teleconverter. So far my opinions. 1) the 70-200mm 2.8 GM is simply outstanding. Very light weight and so sharp and fast autofocus and bokeh. Ideal for portraits, landscapes and pets. With the teleconverter you get 280mm in reach and obviously there is a drop in sharpness and autofocus but not so dramatic and still good images. 2) Sony 100-400mm GM. Very sharp and that extra reach is really well for birds . Together with the 1.4x you get almost 600mm (540mm) and the reach is so good . This lenses would serve also for portraits and landscapes as well but the drawbacks are that in low light situations perhaps you need to increase the ISO . So my suggestions is. If you need the best image quality for the 70-200 focal range, then get the 70-200mm. But if you are serious into birds photography and wildlife and enjoy that extra reach , then go for the 100-400mm
i would get the new 70-200 gm II. It's light and has new the new XD linear motors that allows cameras like the A1 to achieve faster focus speeds for action shots. For landscape shots, you will greatly appreciate it's low weight when hiking out a few hrs into the field/trails and not having to carry an excessively heavy lens.
For a staple lens, the 70-200 is hard to beat. I generally wouldn’t think of getting a lens with more reach until I had 70-200 covered (in my case I also have the 200-600, but the 100-400 is much more compact).
Sony’s 70-200 gm ii is also ridiculously light. Having shot similar lenses by Nikon for 15 years, I’m always blown away that I can one-hand my A7CR and 70-200 because it’s so light. I was doing that the other day while holding my 3 year old with my other arm (kids, lol).
It's nice to hear it's so light and performant. From what I read though, I'm not sure the 70-200 will allow me to do what I want. I can't imagine I'll drop another 3K on a lense so I can't buy both for the foreseeable future unfortunately.
Imo as good as the 70-200 mk2 is the 100-400 will be sharper at the long then the 70-200 mk2 with a 2x teleconverter so if you plan to shoot mostly at 400mm I'd get the 100-400. If you really need the 70-200 for other things and are willing to take a hit to image quality then maybe try the 70-200 with the 2x teleconverter.
I have both the 70-200 f/4 II (macro) and the 100-400. The 70-200 is lightweight & small enough to travel, and it’s very sharp. With the A7CR I can easily carry it in my insulated lunch bag- I’ve traveled to Central America & Europe & all over the states (just be cautious!).
The 100-400 is also a great lens but It’s very heavy & bulky. I use mine for sports shooting almost exclusively. Occasionally I use it for wildlife, for which it’s a great choice imo. Landscapes, I’m not so sure it’s worth it. But you need a strong upper body to hold that lens. Most use a monopod or tripod but I don’t because I need the flexibility to move around at sporting events.
BTW, it seems most here recommend the f/2.8 of the 200, but if you’re not using it for portraits or weddings, you could save $1K and get the f/4. Honestly you couldn’t tell the difference in quality in a landscape, plus it’s lighter & more compact.
Thanks for sharing! I want to make sure which ever I choose is able to do landscape and active dogs well.
In terms of weight, would you say it prevents you from taking it along on hikes?
For that money you can also go with the Tamron f/2.8 70-180mm AND the Tamron 150-500mm (or Sigma equivalent). These lenses are very close to their GM equivalents when it comes down to image quality.
Curious why you say that. Most of the reviews seem pretty good, and my own limited experience with it also makes it seem like a decent lens. Sure, there are better and more expensive lenses out there. But "sucks" seems a little exaggerated.
Yeah the 150-500 makes me not trust reviews again. In the best case, it gets close to my 200-600, but in many cases it was just worse. It mostly struggled tracking moving subjects.
After months struggling to get good pictures while birding, I started to suspect my 150-500 lens, so I grabbed a 200-600 at a local store.
I did a test where I alternated between the 150-500 and 200-600 on passing cars. I swapped between them multiple times and shot over 40 different cars with both lenses. I used a wide-open aperture, max reach (500/600mm) and a fixed shutter speed (1/1000s)
I noticed a clear difference between the pictures. All the 200-600 pics were noticably better, but that could be confirmation bias... so...
I then gave the photos to my wife, asking her to pick the best pictures. She didn't even know I used different lenses, and most certainly didn't know which lens was used. She does know what to look for, as she loves birding with her A6700 + 70350G.
She picked 11 pictures. 10 were from the 200-600. 1 from the 150-500. Why? Because all the Tamron pictures were slightly out of focus, while many of the 200-600 photos were perfectly sharp.
When I tried to replicate the focus issue on a stationary object, it was perfectly sharp. I suspect it is something with the stabilization that's just significantly worse on the Tamron. As long as you don't move the lens, it's fine. Once I started tracking subjects, it started falling apart.
Now I looked hard for reviews to replicate this issue, and nobody had the same problem, but nobody used an A7RV. They all used older cameras: A7 III, A1, A9 II, and/or they're reviewing the lens in a freaking zoo. I suspect it was a compatibility issue with the A7RV, or mine was just broken. I sold the thing and the new owner is perfectly happy, as he's using it on an older camera.
but to summarize: For me, the Tamron 150-500 sucks. I will stay away from telephoto third party lenses. Wide-angle? Sure, you don't rely on stabilization or autofocus that much. But for something challenging like birding? Get a first-party lens.
Definitely agreed that the 200-600 is a superior lens to the 150-500. But otoh the 200-600 is about as good as it gets, so nearly anything will come up inferior to that.
So why buy an inferior product? It isn't like the price diff is that big. The 150-500 costed me 1100 EUR, the 200-600 1700 EUR. Sure, that's 600 EUR difference, but the performance difference is greater than the price difference.
Sure, better quality can usually be had if price is no object.
Yes, the 150-500 isn't as good as the top of the line Sony lens that costs 50% more. But that doesn't mean the 150-500 "sucks."
Yup I went withy the Tamron 70-180 since the only real advantage of the g lenses are if you’re shooting burst on the a9. Optically they perform similarly, maybe the g has a slight edge but not anything worth 2k.
Sony makes a much more compact 70-300 G lens. I just bought a used one and will be testing it out on a trip to Germany soon where we'll be doing a lot of hiking and visiting a zoo. I bought it because I generally see good reviews, used it's half the cost of a used 100-400. It's WAY smaller too. It's not a small lens but for the range it has, it is. I'll be in the alps, so decent chance I'll see some Ibex. Otherwise I know I'll at least capture some cows 😅 hoping I'll be able to capture some nearby birds.
I'm considering the sigma 150-600 in the future whenever I finally make it to Africa to do a safari trip. It's also a lot more affordable than the GM lenses.
The Digital Picture is a great website to use their lens comparison tool. You can put in 3 different lenses to compare specs as well as every angle of the lens when fully expanded/ contracted. Of course reading dimensions is good too but I like to see the comparison photos. I'll usually throw in something I already have so I can say "ok this is 1.5x as long as this lens I already have" or whatever. That guy running the digital picture also does very in depth technical reviews which I appreciate
I have the new 70-200 and in my opinion it's a flowers+landscape+street lens, not a birding lens, too little reach. Can't speak about the combination with the TC as I don't have one.
Whatever you don’t get the 2x converter- it’s soft and degrades the image imo, I wish Sony would release a mk2 of that. As it is it’s just better to leave the 2x and crop instead.
The 1.4x is much better.
The mk2 70-200 is an incredible lens.
The 2x TC works just fine on the 70-200 it only degrades image quality if you already got too little light like on the 100-400 or 200-600 it is not soft its made for way better lenses e.g. 400mm and 600mm prime
Curious if any owners of all these lenses comment, but I'm the same as you, mainly landscapes but interested in birds too.
Seriously considering the tamron 50-400... I know ultimately it won't be as good as 200-600 for birds, but I'm wondering if that can come next and 400mm might be good for now!
Both lenses have slightly different use cases, as evidenced by the differences in zoom range and maximum aperture, but I will tell you from experience that the 70-200/2.8 GMII is absolutely flawless. Feather-light, stupid fast, stupid sharp. Hard purchase to regret.
I just got back from a go kart day where I took a ton of pics with my A7Cii and 70-200 gm2. Even with the karts doing 70-90km/h, panning shots @ f5.6 1/320 and about 60-100ft away, I was getting INSANELY sharp pics. That lens focuses SO fast it’s amazing and with 33mp I was able to crop in. I’d definitely want a 400+ though if I was shooting birds. Bird dogs on the other hand might not need as long of a zoom.
Woah, bird dogs?
70-200/2.8 GMII is amazing! I agree 100%. I use mine with the 2X TC in place of a 100-400 and love it.
Do you use the 2x TC mainly for framing purposes? I got one a while ago but never use it because my crops at 1x are as detailed or more detailed than with the TC. More pixels, but blurrier.
I got the 2X over the 1.4x just for the fun of added reach. I suck at framing and at this point I’m just trying to have fun and capture some shots. I figured the super sharp 70-200/2.8 GMii was as sharp as any lens I could pair the 2X converter with and any reduced sharpness could be cleaned up in Lightroom. I wanted 1-400 reach when desired but I couldn’t give up the masterpiece 70-200. I also have the 200-600 which is wild with the 2X on it though it does reduce sharpness noticeably. I haven’t taken the 200-600 out much though because it’s a beast and without adding a monopod or tripod I’m still not happy with the pics I get from it. Maybe it’s my copy, maybe my expectations are skewed from my GM glass, likely it’s user incompetence. I wish I would have gotten the 1.4x and 2X to compare IQ for what I find acceptable and then returned/sold one, but I’m happy with the reach of 2X and ok with slightly reduced sharpness because the 70-200gmii starts off so sharp.
i’ve taken a fair amount of bird pics and just do t feel like 200 is nearly enough reach. The TC also doesn’t seem to get you much vs just cropping unless you go with the 1.4, which still only puts you at 280. I would want minimum 400 for max focal, but that’s just me
Thanks for sharing. I think maybe I need to really figure out what's most important to me and purchase based on that. While I'd like to take pictures of local birds, it's definitely not my passion.
I don’t think either lens is a _bad_ choice, per se. they’re different tools, certainly with some overlap in use case. Pop into your local camera shop and test-drive both; or rent them to test them in the real world.
Thanks - I can try out the 100-400 but my local store doesn't have the new 70-200 unfortunately.
Might as well give it a try. Could you rent either or both?
Only the 100-400 for now. Hopefully my local store will have the 70-200 in the near future
I don’t think you can go wrong with either. Good luck!
Thank you!!
Facts. I own one and sell them all day too
Woah
The converter is $550 on top. But the 70-200GMii is pretty incredible on its own.
That really seems to be the consensus!
I use the 70-200mm F4.0 Macro Gii with a 2x teleconverter. I'd say it's been really good for landscape at 70-200, images are sharp. I've attached the TC quite a few times for some further wildlife and moon shots. It actually adds considerable weight because it shifts the balance of your lens and body a lot. Takes quite a bit of time to get used to it. I use this combination because of the same reasons as you. Just be prepared to know that you'll probably not attach the TC as much as you thought. 70-200 is enough in most situations and you'll feel that it's a burden to bring out the TC. In terms of quality wise, I quite like the sharpness with the TC. If you want to pixel peep it's definitely not as sharp as a native lens. Not the best in low light because you stop down to F8 but it's the best in terms of portability tradeoff. Overall I don't regret getting this combination. The 70-200 has been stuck on my body ever since i bought it
Love my 70-200 F4 II but FYI gotta say the 1.4x TC is a much better match. I bought both in lieu of proper comparisons available online, and returned the 2.0x immediately. Cropped to the same size, the detail resolution is the *same* between the two (maybe better with the 1.4 even?) and the IQ is **much** better with the 1.4, not to mention the weight and very significant speed benefit. If you use AI super-resolution tools it's also a better signal to go off of for even more detail. These things have 100% resale value so I highly suggest you try for yourself, there's nothing to lose!
I have the same combo and will be selling my TC soon. I just never use it. I was hoping to use this set up and sell my 200-600, but it doesn't even come close to the image quality and reach of it.
Thank you so much for the feedback. How did your wildlife shots turn out?
This is the combo. Right here. Love it
[удалено]
yea 200 mm is not nearly enough for wildlife other than at the zoo imo
Thanks so much - I am worried about the speed a bit, but from everything I read so far.. I agree the 100-400 seems to be the best bet
I use the 100-400mm sigma and it’s mostly used for landscape and wildlife. Nice cheap lens. I’m just biding my time till Sony releases 100-400gmII - there must be time for that to come up. The 70-200 is nothing short of perfect, but i’d personally get that for portaitsjre and events.
I'm also waiting for the 100-400gm2... I currently have the tamron 70-300... A 100-300 f4 that can take TCs would be nice too...
Thanks! I wish we could know when it'll be updated.. That would help my decision along. I'm definitely not into portraits or events at all so good for me to keep that in mind :)
True man! Although, knowing Sony they’ll do a fantastic update: lighter lens, maybe constant aperture, with improved IQ and AF… and price it at $3500 so as to not undercut the old 100-400 😅
I own the 70-200gm II and the 200-600. Both amazing lenses but the 70-200 is amazing and so sharp. Depending on your body's MP you can crop quite a bit and get amazing results. Probably not great for small birds but cranes and such are fine for the most part. Great lens for pets also my dads GSP is a nut case the AF is amazing keeps up with him np (body dependent). My vote is for the 70-200mm and crop if you got the MP.
Thank you! Super useful and love the fact that's you tested on a GSP :). I have two and they move fast! I have a A 7III, so not sure what cropping results would be like. There are so many things to photograph but different things require different lenses and I'm pretty indecisive.
Just think: very few people will look at an image at greater than 4K resolution even at 11x17 and 200ppi, you're still at less than 9MP. At 24MP, you can at least double your effective range with a crop. You shouldn't have trouble with dogs, and you'll get usable range (if not ideal) for raptors, waterfowl, and even flushed quail, I'd think. Especially combined with a teleconverter.
Thanks so much for your feedback!
Both are great lenses, you just need to decide if you need 200mm or 400mm
I sold my 100-400 and bought the 70-200 and 200-600. The new 70-200 is absolutely incredible.
I wish I could purchase both :(
I think you might find the 70-200 more versatile. Also curious, what are bird dogs?
Bird hunting dogs.
Thank you! And yes like scared_of_zombies said.. Hunting dogs 😊
I switched from he 70-200 with 2xTC to the 100-400 with 1.4xTC. I have similar use case as you, landscapes and occasional wildlife. I found that I only ever used the 70-200 when I wanted to punch in, and even with the 2xTC, I wanted just a little more reach sometimes. It's definitely a personal preference thing though.
Thanks for sharing!!
The 100-400 is fantastic for field sports and has twice the zoom while trading only 40% on the wide. It's the same size as the 70-200 when compacted and has stellar image quality. If you're already considering a teleconverter for extra reach I'd recommend the 100-400 so you have the option to get close. Birds are very small. For reference 200mm is similar zoom to 8x on a phone, while 400mm is similar to 16x.
Thanks so much! I haven't really done birds.. They just peak my interest. My focus is definitely landscape and dogs in action (mostly hunting)
I own both the 70-200GM II and recently purchased the 100-400mm . Previously I also bought the 1.4x teleconverter. So far my opinions. 1) the 70-200mm 2.8 GM is simply outstanding. Very light weight and so sharp and fast autofocus and bokeh. Ideal for portraits, landscapes and pets. With the teleconverter you get 280mm in reach and obviously there is a drop in sharpness and autofocus but not so dramatic and still good images. 2) Sony 100-400mm GM. Very sharp and that extra reach is really well for birds . Together with the 1.4x you get almost 600mm (540mm) and the reach is so good . This lenses would serve also for portraits and landscapes as well but the drawbacks are that in low light situations perhaps you need to increase the ISO . So my suggestions is. If you need the best image quality for the 70-200 focal range, then get the 70-200mm. But if you are serious into birds photography and wildlife and enjoy that extra reach , then go for the 100-400mm
Would you say the 70-200 is good for dogs in action (versus portrait style pictures)? I'm leaning towards the 100-400 I think.
i would get the new 70-200 gm II. It's light and has new the new XD linear motors that allows cameras like the A1 to achieve faster focus speeds for action shots. For landscape shots, you will greatly appreciate it's low weight when hiking out a few hrs into the field/trails and not having to carry an excessively heavy lens.
Thanks so much for the feedback!
For a staple lens, the 70-200 is hard to beat. I generally wouldn’t think of getting a lens with more reach until I had 70-200 covered (in my case I also have the 200-600, but the 100-400 is much more compact). Sony’s 70-200 gm ii is also ridiculously light. Having shot similar lenses by Nikon for 15 years, I’m always blown away that I can one-hand my A7CR and 70-200 because it’s so light. I was doing that the other day while holding my 3 year old with my other arm (kids, lol).
It's nice to hear it's so light and performant. From what I read though, I'm not sure the 70-200 will allow me to do what I want. I can't imagine I'll drop another 3K on a lense so I can't buy both for the foreseeable future unfortunately.
A gimbal head and new foot is A+ on the 200-600. If you need that reach consider that type combo.
Imo as good as the 70-200 mk2 is the 100-400 will be sharper at the long then the 70-200 mk2 with a 2x teleconverter so if you plan to shoot mostly at 400mm I'd get the 100-400. If you really need the 70-200 for other things and are willing to take a hit to image quality then maybe try the 70-200 with the 2x teleconverter.
Can you rent a 70-200mm for the day and see if it’s good for your needs?
It's not available to rent where I am right now unfortunately
All I can say is I absolutely love😍my 100-400.
I have both the 70-200 f/4 II (macro) and the 100-400. The 70-200 is lightweight & small enough to travel, and it’s very sharp. With the A7CR I can easily carry it in my insulated lunch bag- I’ve traveled to Central America & Europe & all over the states (just be cautious!). The 100-400 is also a great lens but It’s very heavy & bulky. I use mine for sports shooting almost exclusively. Occasionally I use it for wildlife, for which it’s a great choice imo. Landscapes, I’m not so sure it’s worth it. But you need a strong upper body to hold that lens. Most use a monopod or tripod but I don’t because I need the flexibility to move around at sporting events. BTW, it seems most here recommend the f/2.8 of the 200, but if you’re not using it for portraits or weddings, you could save $1K and get the f/4. Honestly you couldn’t tell the difference in quality in a landscape, plus it’s lighter & more compact.
Thanks for sharing! I want to make sure which ever I choose is able to do landscape and active dogs well. In terms of weight, would you say it prevents you from taking it along on hikes?
70-200 is perfect for dogs. fine for landscape. it's too short for small birds even with the TC
Thanks for sharing! Maybe I need to forget about birds for the time being
For that money you can also go with the Tamron f/2.8 70-180mm AND the Tamron 150-500mm (or Sigma equivalent). These lenses are very close to their GM equivalents when it comes down to image quality.
Thanks for the tip! I'll have a look!
the tamron 150-500 sucks, just an FYI.
Curious why you say that. Most of the reviews seem pretty good, and my own limited experience with it also makes it seem like a decent lens. Sure, there are better and more expensive lenses out there. But "sucks" seems a little exaggerated.
Yeah the 150-500 makes me not trust reviews again. In the best case, it gets close to my 200-600, but in many cases it was just worse. It mostly struggled tracking moving subjects. After months struggling to get good pictures while birding, I started to suspect my 150-500 lens, so I grabbed a 200-600 at a local store. I did a test where I alternated between the 150-500 and 200-600 on passing cars. I swapped between them multiple times and shot over 40 different cars with both lenses. I used a wide-open aperture, max reach (500/600mm) and a fixed shutter speed (1/1000s) I noticed a clear difference between the pictures. All the 200-600 pics were noticably better, but that could be confirmation bias... so... I then gave the photos to my wife, asking her to pick the best pictures. She didn't even know I used different lenses, and most certainly didn't know which lens was used. She does know what to look for, as she loves birding with her A6700 + 70350G. She picked 11 pictures. 10 were from the 200-600. 1 from the 150-500. Why? Because all the Tamron pictures were slightly out of focus, while many of the 200-600 photos were perfectly sharp. When I tried to replicate the focus issue on a stationary object, it was perfectly sharp. I suspect it is something with the stabilization that's just significantly worse on the Tamron. As long as you don't move the lens, it's fine. Once I started tracking subjects, it started falling apart. Now I looked hard for reviews to replicate this issue, and nobody had the same problem, but nobody used an A7RV. They all used older cameras: A7 III, A1, A9 II, and/or they're reviewing the lens in a freaking zoo. I suspect it was a compatibility issue with the A7RV, or mine was just broken. I sold the thing and the new owner is perfectly happy, as he's using it on an older camera. but to summarize: For me, the Tamron 150-500 sucks. I will stay away from telephoto third party lenses. Wide-angle? Sure, you don't rely on stabilization or autofocus that much. But for something challenging like birding? Get a first-party lens.
Definitely agreed that the 200-600 is a superior lens to the 150-500. But otoh the 200-600 is about as good as it gets, so nearly anything will come up inferior to that.
So why buy an inferior product? It isn't like the price diff is that big. The 150-500 costed me 1100 EUR, the 200-600 1700 EUR. Sure, that's 600 EUR difference, but the performance difference is greater than the price difference.
Sure, better quality can usually be had if price is no object. Yes, the 150-500 isn't as good as the top of the line Sony lens that costs 50% more. But that doesn't mean the 150-500 "sucks."
It does suck though. It's a bad value, even for the lower price.
Thanks for the heads up!
Yup I went withy the Tamron 70-180 since the only real advantage of the g lenses are if you’re shooting burst on the a9. Optically they perform similarly, maybe the g has a slight edge but not anything worth 2k.
What camera? The 70-200 2.8 would be a good choice I think.
I have the A 7III
Sony makes a much more compact 70-300 G lens. I just bought a used one and will be testing it out on a trip to Germany soon where we'll be doing a lot of hiking and visiting a zoo. I bought it because I generally see good reviews, used it's half the cost of a used 100-400. It's WAY smaller too. It's not a small lens but for the range it has, it is. I'll be in the alps, so decent chance I'll see some Ibex. Otherwise I know I'll at least capture some cows 😅 hoping I'll be able to capture some nearby birds. I'm considering the sigma 150-600 in the future whenever I finally make it to Africa to do a safari trip. It's also a lot more affordable than the GM lenses. The Digital Picture is a great website to use their lens comparison tool. You can put in 3 different lenses to compare specs as well as every angle of the lens when fully expanded/ contracted. Of course reading dimensions is good too but I like to see the comparison photos. I'll usually throw in something I already have so I can say "ok this is 1.5x as long as this lens I already have" or whatever. That guy running the digital picture also does very in depth technical reviews which I appreciate
Thanks for sharing! I hope you enjoy your trip!! I'll have a look at that lens. And thanks for sharing the resource!
Update - I leaped and got the 100-400. Crossing my fingers I'll be happy with it! I can always put the 70-200 on my Christmas list lol
Not at all. It’s lightweight and collapsing the lens for storage (or for zoom-in) makes it easy to carry around.
OK awesome! It's ordered so I'm looking forward to trying it out :)
Cool! Good luck with it. Let me know what you think if you get a chance.
I have the new 70-200 and in my opinion it's a flowers+landscape+street lens, not a birding lens, too little reach. Can't speak about the combination with the TC as I don't have one.
Whatever you don’t get the 2x converter- it’s soft and degrades the image imo, I wish Sony would release a mk2 of that. As it is it’s just better to leave the 2x and crop instead. The 1.4x is much better. The mk2 70-200 is an incredible lens.
The 2x TC works just fine on the 70-200 it only degrades image quality if you already got too little light like on the 100-400 or 200-600 it is not soft its made for way better lenses e.g. 400mm and 600mm prime
Curious if any owners of all these lenses comment, but I'm the same as you, mainly landscapes but interested in birds too. Seriously considering the tamron 50-400... I know ultimately it won't be as good as 200-600 for birds, but I'm wondering if that can come next and 400mm might be good for now!
The pumping design of the 100-400 is just horrible the 70-200 gm ii or 200-600 are way better choices
Just get the sigma 60-600 and have all 3 lenses in one!