1.4 TC or 200/600mm lens

[Ralph]

I would like to ask you all who know far more than me as I am not a good reader and the tech stuff goes over my head.
With the Sony A7iii I have got the Sigma 100/400mm contemporary lens and I am like it but I do find times when I wish it had just that
little more reach. And yes I know the same would go for the 600mm after a while to.

But I was wondering if I would be better of in getting a 1.4 Teleconverter over the 200/600mm or 150/600mm lens depending what is about at
the time when I will be ready to buy what ever. The reason I chose the 100/400mm lens was due to me wrist and shoulders.
And I thought the weight side that would be better.

But I am now finding a few shots go missing due to the reach and there is nothing I can do about it as
the birds I am after seem to have a knowledge of the lens you have and stay just far enough away so you get a shot but not the best.
And advice on this will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

 

[Jeff A]

The Sony 1.4 Teleconverter is not compatable with the Sigma 100-400. I wish it were. If it was, I would have ordered it already.

 

[Ralph]

The Sony 1.4 Teleconverter is not compatable with the Sigma 100-400. I wish it were. If it was, I would have ordered it already.

So this then means the 600mm lens. I think you for your input as this will now let me work on the wife and
point her to what I need. Thank you.
But if I got the Sony 100/400mm lens would this work then.

 

[Jeff A]

So this then means the 600mm lens. I think you for your input as this will now let me work on the wife and
point her to what I need. Thank you.
But if I got the Sony 100/400mm lens would this wo

So this then means the 600mm lens. I think you for your input as this will now let me work on the wife and
point her to what I need. Thank you.
But if I got the Sony 100/400mm lens would this work then.

Yes. When it starts raining cash in California (instead of ash from brush and Forrest fires) I will sell my Sigma 100-400 and buy the Sony 100-400 GM. I seldom if ever need a 600 but the Teleconverter would give me 540mm. Hell, that's what Mark Galer does! Having said that, the Sigma was a good buy and a very nice lens.

 

[Ralph]

Yes. When it starts raining cash in California (instead of ash from brush and Forrest fires) I will sell my Sigma 100-400 and buy the Sony 100-400 GM. I seldom if ever need a 600 but the Teleconverter would give me 540mm. Hell, that's what Mark Galer does! Having said that, the Sigma was a good buy and a very nice lens.

I did go and have a look on youtube about the combination of the Sony 400mm lens coupled with the 1.4 converter and it was good.
But as you have said and I know what you mean with fires as our nation is hit hard each summer also.
So keep safe with them going on and if close to you please get the hell out as once locked in by fire the ending isn't really good.

But the dollars wanted for this lens will put it out of my range for a very long time. So I can go either of these ways now.
Save and save for the Sony Lens and Converter. Or save to get the Converter and just go manual focus all the way. Or go for the heavier
non Sony lens which would make it a Sigma or Tamron 600mm lens.

For me hip pocket wise it will be the non Sony lens, unless we win the lottery that is.
Much appreciated.

 

[spudhead]

Hi I have the 200-600 and 1.4 with the a7iii the converter is not great but its really good with the a9, so what I mean to say is the 200-600 is really good at all focal lengths for the a7iii but I would not have the converter if I only had the a7iii , I mainly use the converter with the a9

 

[Jeff A]

Here is a link for a comparison of the 200-600 G vs the 100-400 GM by Mark Galer. I thought it would be an appropriate time for interested parties to view it. As usual, Mr. Galer gets into the details deeply.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Get the 200 600, it's such a fantastic lens, it's well worth the extra for the way it handles alone, and it's sharp as they come.

 

[Clix Pix]

I have both Sony lenses -- I started out with the 200-600mm and realized that it wasn't going to work for me as a walk around kind of lens so bought the 100-400mm. GM. The latter has become one of my favorites during the year plus a few months that I've had it. Eventually I purchased a 1.4x TC for it and immediately liked what I was seeing and getting and that TC hasn't come off the lens since. So I figured, OK, if I want to use a TC with the 200-600mm (AKA The Bazooka) I'll have to buy another 1.4x TC for it, and I did. Best of both worlds for both lenses.

I tend to use the 100-400mm a lot more than the 200-600 since the latter pretty much requires using a tripod, but of course that is doable and the lens is well worth the extra effort!

Both lenses are really, really excellent and I am very happy with each of them.

 

[Ralph]

Thank you to everyone who has jump to help me and I have and really do appreciate your words of wisdom.
Sadly the idea of going for the Sony 100/400mm and 1.4 converter is a good combination.
Though it looks to me as the 600mm is a far better way to go price wise here in Australia.
I would not look to get the Teleconverter with this lens as I think the reach will be .

So lets cancel out the combination of all 100/400mm lens and now fully look at the 600mm lens which there are the
Sony, Sigma Sports and Contemporary lens and the Tamron.

I did have the 150/600 mm Tamron with the Sony A77ii and like what I was getting. But I know the new Sony A7iii
is by far better in all department or maybe I have just got a little better as well. The Tamron 600mm is the cheapest out of them all
and this might sound good but I do feel the images will be slightly less quality. I don't know this for sure but its a gut feeling and I will go by that.

So I think if all things being equal I will try to get the Sony G Master lens. If not this one it will be the Sigma Sport but with no Teleconverter at all.
Again this has been a real eye opened and many thanks to everyone.

 

[Reciprocum]

If you shoot in dusty environments then internal zoom (200-600) vs external zoom (100-400 GM) should become one of you main criteria of choice too.
Even tough I could afford the more expensive combo 100-400GM + 1.4TC (and desired it for the smaller size/weight too), I ended up going with the 200-600 for that reason alone.

 

[Clix Pix]

Thank you to everyone who has jump to help me and I have and really do appreciate your words of wisdom.
Sadly the idea of going for the Sony 100/400mm and 1.4 converter is a good combination.
Though it looks to me as the 600mm is a far better way to go price wise here in Australia.
I would not look to get the Teleconverter with this lens as I think the reach will be .

So lets cancel out the combination of all 100/400mm lens and now fully look at the 600mm lens which there are the
Sony, Sigma Sports and Contemporary lens and the Tamron.

I did have the 150/600 mm Tamron with the Sony A77ii and like what I was getting. But I know the new Sony A7iii
is by far better in all department or maybe I have just got a little better as well. The Tamron 600mm is the cheapest out of them all
and this might sound good but I do feel the images will be slightly less quality. I don't know this for sure but its a gut feeling and I will go by that.

So I think if all things being equal I will try to get the Sony G Master lens. If not this one it will be the Sigma Sport but with no Teleconverter at all.
Again this has been a real eye opened and many thanks to everyone.

OK, now you've got me confused. Are you talking about purchasing the Sony 600mm f/4 GM lens, which is $12,998.00 in USD, or the Sony 200-600mm G lens, which is $1,998.00 USD? Big difference in price there!

IMHO the 200-600mm is the more versatile in some ways although, yes, of course we tend to use the longest focal length a lens provides most of the time. I like being able to adjust composition with the zoom, especially if I am in a position where it would be difficult to move the tripod. For example, this morning I shot a GBH from my deck and while most of the time I had the zoom fully extended there were a couple of situations where I needed to change composition, back up a bit. I tend to also keep the 1.4x TC on that lens as it gives me even more reach when needed, and today was a good opportunity for that. The Sony 1.4x TC is of excellent quality and when on the 200-600 doesn't penalize one too much in terms of f/stops; the fastest f/stop with the TC is f/9. In good light that is not an issue; shooting in poor light, though, it could be as then the ISO is going to significantly increase. That's when one would not want the TC on there.

One of the images I shot this morning:

• ILCE-1
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter
• 783.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 500

 

[Jeff A]

OK, now you've got me confused. Are you talking about purchasing the Sony 600mm f/4 GM lens, which is $12,998.00 in USD, or the Sony 200-600mm G lens, which is $1,998.00 USD? Big difference in price there!

IMHO the 200-600mm is the more versatile in some ways although, yes, of course we tend to use the longest focal length a lens provides most of the time. I like being able to adjust composition with the zoom, especially if I am in a position where it would be difficult to move the tripod. For example, this morning I shot a GBH from my deck and while most of the time I had the zoom fully extended there were a couple of situations where I needed to change composition, back up a bit. I tend to also keep the 1.4x TC on that lens as it gives me even more reach when needed, and today was a good opportunity for that. The Sony 1.4x TC is of excellent quality and when on the 200-600 doesn't penalize one too much in terms of f/stops; the fastest f/stop with the TC is f/9. In good light that is not an issue; shooting in poor light, though, it could be as then the ISO is going to significantly increase. That's when one would not want the TC on there.

One of the images I shot this morning:

View attachment 12672

Impressive!

 

[Ralph]

If you shoot in dusty environments then internal zoom (200-600) vs external zoom (100-400 GM) should become one of you main criteria of choice too.
Even tough I could afford the more expensive combo 100-400GM + 1.4TC (and desired it for the smaller size/weight too), I ended up going with the 200-600 for that reason alone.

Let me put it this way for you so you do understand this fully. We have had dust walls that roll into town and you have to stop your car if you are driving as there is no visability what so ever. So yes we at times have it very dusty and this dust has been found all over the world. I don't know how they do that but they do. So this piece of advice is maybe one of the more important factors to look at, and I thank you for thinking of it.

OK, now you've got me confused. Are you talking about purchasing the Sony 600mm f/4 GM lens, which is $12,998.00 in USD, or the Sony 200-600mm G lens, which is $1,998.00 USD? Big difference in price there!

Mate, I am sorry about that as I am lazy with my talking and writing and at times think people know just what I am saying I am not talking of the big expensive lens I am looking at the $2000 plus a little more as I have found it here selling for. I would not even look at a lens that cost more than my car I am driving now ever. Well as I might have said somewhere, If I won the lottery then it would be all the best stuff. But until that happen that is off the books. Sorry for not putting down the correct one.

IMHO the 200-600mm is the more versatile in some ways although, yes, of course we tend to use the longest focal length a lens provides most of the time. I like being able to adjust composition with the zoom, especially if I am in a position where it would be difficult to move the tripod. For example, this morning I shot a GBH from my deck and while most of the time I had the zoom fully extended there were a couple of situations where I needed to change composition, back up a bit. I tend to also keep the 1.4x TC on that lens as it gives me even more reach when needed, and today was a good opportunity for that. The Sony 1.4x TC is of excellent quality and when on the 200-600 doesn't penalize one too much in terms of f/stops; the fastest f/stop with the TC is f/9. In good light that is not an issue; shooting in poor light, though, it could be as then the ISO is going to significantly increase. That's when one would not want the TC on there.

For me I don't think I would look at the Teleconverter, well not for the first few months. I know for a fact there are going to be times when I wish I had more reach even with the 600mm on the camera and to that I think I might have mentioned it before about even with the then longer reach I might be looking for more. So I do think that would 1.4 teleconverter would not be apart of my set up for at least 6 months after getting the 600mm lens.
I have had a 600mm lens before so I do have a slight insight to who they are. But again it will be a learn curve to go through once I get my hands on it.
My main problem is, and this is where I wish I knew some with one as I get a build up of calcium in my shoulder as it is now. And this make it hard for me to get my arms up and hold them there. So if I knew someone, so I could borrow their lens to see how I would go with it before buying one. Or if we had a shop that hired them out would do real good. Thank you and everyone as a matter of fact.
Your help has been just that help that I need and help that I am going to listen to. Now its the to butter up the wife or the finance broker of the house. But I can see it taking a while but I am sure I will get my way in the long run.
Thank you again to all.

 

[Clix Pix]

Thanks for clarifying things! I can speak from my own experience that the 200-600, while a fabulous lens, is not really something that I can handhold (I am a petite woman of "a certain age") and that I'm much happier having it on a tripod when I'm using it. I bought it in the early winter and used it off my deck just fine but when spring came and I wanted to go walking around the neighborhood with it that is when I realized that, oops, this is a a wonderful lens but not one with which I can go strolling around and hand-hold. That is when I bought the 100-400mm, which rapidly became one of my favorite lenses.

The 200-600 is a fantastic lens, especially for its price, and well worth owning and using. If one has any sort of physical issues, though, this isn't a good lens to try and handhold, it really is better used on a tripod. As for the TC I think it was about six or seven months before I got around to adding that to the lens once I had figured out some things. To me it is well worth the money but, yeah, it's another expense.....

 

[Reciprocum]

The 200-600 is a fantastic lens, especially for its price, and well worth owning and using. If one has any sort of physical issues, though, this isn't a good lens to try and handhold, it really is better used on a tripod.

Tottaly agree on the tripod suggestion. I would recommend 3-section feet, carbon fibber (not to weight you down even more), no central column (to be able to go flat on the ground as low as possible).

Notice where I attached the peak design anchor points on the 200-600: on the lens foot. I found the original strap holes on the lens body to be too sharp and they could eat/cut trough the PD anchor cords.

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM (SEL50F12GM)
• 50.0 mm
• ƒ/1.2
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 100

 

[Clix Pix]

Thank you for bringing that up about the PD anchor points and the strap holes on the 200-600 lens body!!! I recently got into the Peak Design system -- love it! -- and put the anchor points on all my cameras but didn't think about the 200-600mm. I have an Op/Tech strap attached to it, and the other day when I was using the lens I thought, "oh, yeah, need to swap this out now with PD anchor thingies," but then got busy with reviewing the images I'd shot, put away the lens and didn't remember to change the strap. Maybe I'll just leave things as they are, then, although it would be more convenient for storing in the cabinet to have the PD system on the lens.

When I bought the lens I also bought a Wimberley foot to swap with the original Sony foot, as the Wimberley foot has Arca-Swiss and of course is meant to fit nicely on a Wimberley gimbal head, and that works very well. I've got the gimbal on a Gitzo that I have had for years, a good sturdy one which does have a center post but I doubt that there would be many occasions when I'd want to get down closer to the ground anyway. That is useful, though, for shooting in certain situations when shooting wildlife or birds in a wetlands area or other body of water wading and feeding. Actually, I think there is a way to remove that center column or to reverse it so that it is shorter, but I have never tried it......

 

[Reciprocum]

Thank you for bringing that up about the PD anchor points and the strap holes on the 200-600 lens body!!!

This the detail on how/where I looped them on the lens

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM (SEL50F12GM)
• 50.0 mm
• ƒ/1.2
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 100

I also looped one PD anchor point on the strap itself, so that I can close loop it and it will stay in my neck without slipping to the floor or without me needing to put it away in the bag.

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM (SEL50F12GM)
• 50.0 mm
• ƒ/1.2
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 100

Attaching the anchor points on the lens foot also allows me to detach the foot and hang store the whole thing from a single nail on the wall, leaving a clean leans (no protrusions to scratch the neighbour) to go inside the dry cabinet.

 

[Ralph]

Thanks for clarifying things! I can speak from my own experience that the 200-600, while a fabulous lens, is not really something that I can handhold (I am a petite woman of "a certain age") and that I'm much happier having it on a tripod when I'm using it. I bought it in the early winter and used it off my deck just fine but when spring came and I wanted to go walking around the neighborhood with it that is when I realized that, oops, this is a a wonderful lens but not one with which I can go strolling around and hand-hold. That is when I bought the 100-400mm, which rapidly became one of my favorite lenses.

The 200-600 is a fantastic lens, especially for its price, and well worth owning and using. If one has any sort of physical issues, though, this isn't a good lens to try and handhold, it really is better used on a tripod. As for the TC I think it was about six or seven months before I got around to adding that to the lens once I had figured out some things. To me it is well worth the money but, yeah, it's another expense.....

I am challenged quite a lot in the physical way but I am pigheaded and will just do things and worry about the problems I will have when I get home or even at times when driving home. So for me to get the TC I would need to get the actual Sony 100/400mm lens for it to work with it. So I think I rather keep this Sigma 100/400mm lens as it is as I like it and just get one of the types of 600mm lens out there today. I use to have a big lens and I was able to handle it hand held but I have got far worse since then so it will be a learning cuve for me to do once I fially get one. I am not overly fussed over which one as I will not be looking at a TC with the 600mm lens as I am sure I was really happy before with what I was getting out of I think was the Tamron 150/600mm lens .

 

[Ralph]

Tottaly agree on the tripod suggestion. I would recommend 3-section feet, carbon fibber (not to weight you down even more), no central column (to be able to go flat on the ground as low as possible).

Notice where I attached the peak design anchor points on the 200-600: on the lens foot. I found the original strap holes on the lens body to be too sharp and they could eat/cut trough the PD anchor cords.

View attachment 12673

Thanks for your points on this and though they are good they can't really help me. I struggle just to get to my knee's so 99% of my shots are from standing up as I can't get low. And if you have seen a Giraffe getting up from drinking water well I am far worse looking at trying to get up, so I just don't do that no more. But on the tripod for the able bodied people out there it is a to idea. So don't think I don't appreciate what you have posted here cause the point is I do.

 

[Jeff A]

Thanks for your points on this and though they are good they can't really help me. I struggle just to get to my knee's so 99% of my shots are from standing up as I can't get low. And if you have seen a Giraffe getting up from drinking water well I am far worse looking at trying to get up, so I just don't do that no more. But on the tripod for the able bodied people out there it is a to idea. So don't think I don't appreciate what you have posted here cause the point is I do.

I am a man and not a petite man but I am "of a certain age" so I can relate to the problems of getting the camera low for certain shots. The mental picture of me trying to get off the ground, in public, with camera gear is nowhere I want to go. It's a sad state of affairs but it is what it is. I shot some shots of a specialty automobile a couple of weeks ago and bent over for many of the shots. I paid dearly for those shots. Getting old is not for sissies!

 

[Clix Pix]

"Growing old is not for sissies!" Soooo true!!!! Yesterday, taking advantage of wonderful weather I went out to a local botanical gardens and took my bag with the A1 and three lenses (90mm macro, 50mm f/1.2 and 12-24mm f/2.8). After I'd loaded the bag I hoisted it on my shoulder and thought, "if I try to walk around there with this I'll last all of ten minutes!" and hurriedly retrieved a wheeled cart to use. That worked well, but even so about an hour so in I began getting signals from my back (history of herniated disk some years ago and probably now good old degeneration due to age) that it was not happy. Too much bending over to aim a lens at the wonderful flowers... No way I'm going to get down on the ground to become up close and personal with my subjects -- the getting-down wouldn't be bad but the getting back up again sure would be!!

I think I've been a little too sedentary these past few months as it was easier to just stay at home in front of the computer on cold winter days or hot summer days than to get out and at least take a walk if nothing else. History of surgery many years ago for a herniated disk (L5/S1) plus over the past year or so I have noticed signs of problems that suggest some disk deterioration due to age. Getting old sure isn't fun! When I want to do things and my body doesn't want to cooperate or balks and starts complaining, that is just so frustrating.

 

[Jeff A]

"Growing old is not for sissies!" Soooo true!!!! Yesterday, taking advantage of wonderful weather I went out to a local botanical gardens and took my bag with the A1 and three lenses (90mm macro, 50mm f/1.2 and 12-24mm f/2.8). After I'd loaded the bag I hoisted it on my shoulder and thought, "if I try to walk around there with this I'll last all of ten minutes!" and hurriedly retrieved a wheeled cart to use. That worked well, but even so about an hour so in I began getting signals from my back (history of herniated disk some years ago and probably now good old degeneration due to age) that it was not happy. Too much bending over to aim a lens at the wonderful flowers... No way I'm going to get down on the ground to become up close and personal with my subjects -- the getting-down wouldn't be bad but the getting back up again sure would be!!

I think I've been a little too sedentary these past few months as it was easier to just stay at home in front of the computer on cold winter days or hot summer days than to get out and at least take a walk if nothing else. History of surgery many years ago for a herniated disk (L5/S1) plus over the past year or so I have noticed signs of problems that suggest some disk deterioration due to age. Getting old sure isn't fun! When I want to do things and my body doesn't want to cooperate or balks and starts complaining, that is just so frustrating.

Growing old + sedentary. A bad combination, one which I suffer from. This whole Covid-19 thing blew a whole in all of out lives. It's a terrible thing. Also, two weeks ago I had a Radio Frequency Ablation on my back and the results so far are less than expected. I came to a decision last night that I'm going to prepare a "Personal Lesson Plan" with some shooting assignments. I don't think there are a lot of interesting things near me as subjects but I decided I'm not selling them to Magazines, I just need the practice and experience so the subject matter itself is not so important. You never know, I might trip across a few decent subjects along the way.

 

[Clix Pix]

I am fortunate in that I live in a place where there is lots to see and shoot, even right from my condo unit deck. That has its benefits, but it also adds to the laziness factor. Why should I go walking around the lake when I can run out to my deck, camera in hand, and shoot a cormorant, some geese, occasionally Alfred the Great Blue Heron? I am definitely intending to walk around the lake more now that the weather will be cooler and less humid and I also am planning to get in the car more often and go to one of the botanical gardens around here or a park, somewhere reasonably scenic that isn't what I see every day at home. My body will benefit and I will enjoy the experience. Might even get a few nice photos here-and-there as well...

 

[Ralph]

Clix Pix I understand what you mean and what I would call in is operating smart.
I know of a lot of people not personally but going by their posts where they say they are doing the same thing.
I wish I could but I can't so I just say you are doing the right thing as I see it.