Birds A Few Garden Birds

[Tim Mayo]

A few different garden birds taken at my father-in-law's and shot with the a7 IV and a mix of the Sony FE 100-400 GM and the Sony 70-200 F2.8 GM II + 2x Tele. I'm working on a comparison of these two lenses at 400mm, can you spot the difference? Without looking at the exif

Blue tit

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II + 2X Teleconverter
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 800

Long-tailed-tit

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II + 2X Teleconverter
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 640

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 640

Male chaffinch

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II + 2X Teleconverter
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 800

Female chaffinch

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II + 2X Teleconverter
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 640

Dunnock

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 1600

Nuthatch

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II + 2X Teleconverter
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 800

 

[Jeff A]

A few different garden birds taken at my father-in-law's and shot with the a7 IV and a mix of the Sony FE 100-400 GM and the Sony 70-200 F2.8 GM II + 2x Tele. I'm working on a comparison of these two lenses at 400mm, can you spot the difference? Without looking at the exif

Blue tit

View attachment 18479

View attachment 18483

View attachment 18486

Long-tailed-tit

View attachment 18478

View attachment 18485

Male chaffinch

View attachment 18480

Female chaffinch

View attachment 18482

View attachment 18484

Dunnock

View attachment 18487

Nuthatch

View attachment 18481

I lose evertime there is one of these comparisons but it looks like the FE 100-400 has the edge to me.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Nice. The bokeh on the 70 200 is noticeably smoother, but the images are a bit softer too.

 

[jonhawk]

Nice comparisons. I have to say the differences seem marginal, one minute I think one lens is a bit softer then I look at another photo and change my mind

 

[Jeff A]

So Tim, what's the final verdict? Do we have a winner? Actually, there is no loser between these lenses.

 

[Tim Mayo]

So Tim, what's the final verdict? Do we have a winner? Actually, there is no loser between these lenses.

The 100-400 is definitely a little sharper, but you'll only really notice if you crop heavily and pixel peep. At normal viewing distances I doubt anyone would be able to tell. I'm working on a complete comparison article with lots more samples, hope to have that finished early next week.

 

[dragonsdreams]

I can't spot much difference myself apart from a nicer bokeh on the 70-200mm.
That's a relief - I don't have to rush out and buy the new 70-200mm, I can just keep my 100-400mm.

 

[Brownie]

Even the bokeh isn't all that much different. I certainly don't see enough to warrant $2700.