hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I am looking at getting a camera/lens setup for wildlife and sports photography. One option I am looking at is a Sony combo of the A1/A9ii with a 100-400 GM or 200-600 G lens. I have tried the 200-600 G lens on a A7m3 but found it too heavy for extended use. As an alternative, I have been looking into using the Sony 100-400 GM lens with a 1.4x teleconverter. The 100-400 with the 1.4x will have less reach (560mm vs 600mm) and less light (f/8 vs f/6.3).

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Have you given any thought to the RX10m4 ?? You will be astounded in all but quite lower light........Yes I have and use one - I have been mostly a Canon person. Yes, I know it will be difficult to accept this.......
.

wireloose

I have the A1 and the 200-600, and the 1.4x Sony TC. It’s a great combination but it is very big and not light. And very conspicuous. Usually use it with a monopod and the Wimberley MH100 head or with a tripod. I swapped my Canon 100-400L to get it and was delighted at the reach and the quality. That said I ended up buying the 100-400 Sigma for travel, it doesn’t have the reach for wildlife but doesn’t fill up half my bag, and for sports it is usually a good fit.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

I was deliberating the same question a few months ago, and I ended up with the Sony 100-400 GM. So far, I have been very happy with my choice.

There are a number of factors that influenced my decision in favor of the 100-400. First, it is considerably smaller and lighter than the 200-600. This matters if you travel a lot and/or often carry the lens for a day or the better part of it. The 100-400mm still is portable; just seeing and holding the 200-600mm convinced me that this lens is not suitable for my style of travel and extended use in the field. I currently am on a six-month leave that I am spending partly in Kenya and partly in Europe; the 100-400mm, along with the Sony 24-105mm, makes for an outstanding travel kit. (I also carry the Zeiss Batis 18mm and the tiny Sony Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 and both the A7 III and A7R III bodies.)

Second, I bought it mostly to shoot wildlife in Kenya and landscapes, usually hand-held. I find that 400mm works well for that. (For birding you probably would need 600mm or more.) I use it exclusively on my A7R III, which at 42 MP allows me to crop considerably while still getting a very good image. If you shoot mostly with your A1 at 50 MP this may work well for you. I too have considered getting the 1.4x teleconverter but have not seen the need yet.

I rarely shoot sports. Unless you need a lot of detail or your subject is far away, 400mm might work for you, again keeping the cropping option in mind. This may be less of an option with the A9 II at 24 MP.

I have been very happy with the performance and the reach of my 100-400mm. I understand all the tradeoffs you mention as I considered them myself. This definitely was the right choice for me but may not be for you.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The 200-600 is just as fast as the 100-400 IMHO. I have shot both. And the 200-600 is just a lot better for wildlife. And I have found it almost as sharp as my 600 f4. And that is saying something. I have never found the need for a 1.4 yet.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

I shoot mainly birds so prefer the additional reach provided by the 200-600. As such, my 100-400 doesn’t get much use but is really great for close-ups, almost a macro lens. Yes, the 2-6 is a bit heavy and is difficult to use when you are focused on a subject waiting for something to happen, but for quick captures, like flight, its great and plenty sharp if you keep the shutter speed up while hand holding. One thing great about these newer cameras, like the A1, not only can you crop significantly, but with benefit of noise reduction software like Topaz de-noise, you should not be afraid of high ISOs. If a fast camera like the A-1 is available, and you have the resources, it will run circles around the a9II. For travel, yes the 100-400 is smaller and lighter and would be better for travel, but another consideration is what some pros are saying about the new 70-200, with extenders, making the 100-400 obsolete. Anyway, it’s a tough decision, but I would be leaning toward the 2-6 compared to the 1-4 with extenders.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

I have both lenses. The 100-400 is easy to travel with; the 200-600 is not. The 100-400 is lighter and focuses fast on both my A1 and A7RIV. The 200-400 does not focus as reliably on my A7RIV as it does on the A1. I can crop 50% on either camera and still get a high quality large print (17"x22") with the 100-400. I've seen recent test info that says it is better to crop than to use a teleconverter.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Once again, I’ll disagree. Yes the Sony RX10MIV is pretty amazing for what it can do in situations where my FF Nikon with the 200-500mm would just be too unwieldy. It’s great in my kayak but if I’m not in a kayak both my Nikon and Olympus are superior.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

And, once again in the situations I have used it so far , it beats my FF Sony and my Canon 80D stuff - that is MY experience - your mileage can and will vary ... I have no allegiance to ANY camera or system - only what works for ME ! Have used Canon since 1980 thinking of selling all of it - can't believe I said that - or even considered it ! ! - but objective facts are facts.
.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, I have been saying this for quite some time now ......especially if done properly and pixel enlargement software applied if needed.

hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Thank you for the responses. I am planning on renting the A1 with the 200-600 later this summer and give it a try. I have a monopod that I will use to try to reduce the strain on my arms.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

😎

gwilliams6

I have owned Sony A6500, A7RII, A7RIII, A7III, A9, and currently own A7RIV, A1, A7SIII. I also currently own 13 E-mount lenses covering 10mm to 600mm from Sony, Sigma and Tamron.

I also faced the decision of Sony 100-400mm or Sony 200-600mm. I chose the 200-600mm because nothing else matters when you need the reach. I can handhold the 200-600mm and take a monopod if I need to rest it for a long period. I love the 200-600mm and have had one since the first day they came out in the first USA shipment in August 2019. I have carried it all across America and foreign countries on shoots and the lens is super.

Tests prove the 600mm at 600mm is sharper than the 100-400mm with 1.4X at 560 mm. I do own both Sony 1.4X and 2X teleconverters and also use them with my 200-600mm with great success.

If weight is your biggest consideration then consider the 100-400mm. I am totally used to the size and weight of the 200-600mm. And I prefer that the 200-600mm is an internal zooming lens, which the 100-400mm is not, so the 200-600mm balance stays great at any focal length.

And the 200-600mm has a much shorter rotation for full zoom, making it fast and easy to just use one finger to quickly turn a third turn and change the entire zoom range. Super

I have absolutely no regrets picking the 200-600mm over the excellent 100-400mm lens. Others may have different points of view. BTW, the 200-600mm outsells the 100-400mm, that should tell you something.

Here just a few shots with the 200-600mm: ALL THESE SHOTS WERE HANDHELD
1) A Snowy Egret takes off from its watery perch on the Caribbean island of Sint Maarten/St. Martin. Sony A1, 200-600mm lens, 319mm, ISO 1600, f6.3, 1/4000 sec.

2) A Great White Egret bends its neck to clean it feathers on Island of Sint Maarten/St. Martin. Sony A1, 200-600mm lens, 519mm, ISO 1600, f6.3, 1/2000 sec. First the full frame then a tight crop from the same image.

3) Wild Iguana on the island of Sint Maarten/St. Martin. Sony A1, 200-600mm , 600mm, ISO 400, f6.3, 1/1000 sec

4) Kids pulled on rafts by a speedboat on Brookings Lake, Manistee National Forest, Michigan, USA. Sony A1, 200-600mm lens, 600mm, ISO 1000, f9, 1/2000 sec, a 50% crop, the first two frames of a burst.

6) At a wild Elephant Seal rookery on the Pacific Ocean Coast, California, USA. A seal pup squeals as it gets squeezed and tries not to get crushed by a 5000 pound amorous Bull Elephant Seal going after one of its cows. This pup survived this time, many pups do not. Sony A7RIV, 200-600mm lens, 600mm, ISO 400, f6.3, 1/1000 sec.

7) Famed Monument Valley, scene of countless movies, TV Shows, Commercials, Navajo lands, Arizona/Utah border, USA. Sony A7Riv, Sony 200-600mm lens, 207mm, ISO 100, f6.3, 1/500 sec, handheld.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

gwilliams6,

Thanks for the beautiful photos and your thoughts on the two zoom options. I had noticed that the 200-600 outsells the 100-400. I agree about the need for additional reach for BIF.

gwilliams6