Sony 100-400 VS 70-200 F2.8 GM II With 2x Teleconverter at 400mm

[Tim Mayo]

Since this question comes up now and again, I decided to put together a comparison between the latest Sony FE 70-200 F2.8 GM II lens with the 2x teleconverter attached (400mm, f/5.6) and the FE 100-400 GM F4.5-5.6 lens also at 400mm, f/5.6.

Surprisingly it's extremely close between them, although the teleconverter does introduce a lot of chromatic aberration when shooting high contrast images.

You'll find the full comparison over on the blog:

Sony 100-400 VS 70-200 F2.8 GM II With 2x Tele at 400mm - AlphaShooters.com

In this article I'll be comparing the Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS lens with the Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II with the 2x teleconverter attached.

www.alphashooters.com

Is anyone here shooting with the Sony FE 70-200 F2.8 GM II and either the 1.4x or 2x teleconverters? If you are, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this combination.

 

[AlphaWorld]

The teleconverters have been out of stock for a long time here, but the 2x reappeared last week, by chance right in the middle of a 15% off sale (what a pity!) - the 1.4x is still out of stock. I picked up the 2x, and today is its first excursion. Probably won't be enough to get a final opinion, but I'm keen to find out.

 

[AlphaWorld]

OK, I am delighted with the 2x teleconverter on the 70-200 GM II on an A1.

I was using too fast a shutter, which forced my ISO higher than I'd like (ISO 6400 and above) - silly setting mistake. I am not going to show the images I shot because of that mistake.

Focus is just as snappy as I'd like, even though the effective aperture is f/5.6 because of the teleconverter. I used the whole range from 140mm to 400mm, and got sharp images at each focal length. Bird eye AF works fine.

Being able to zoom to 400mm makes quite a difference, and being able to do it with a lens as light as the 70-200 (+ a bit for the TC), makes handheld shooting easy. I find the 200-600 rapidly gets too heavy for me (I'm not as strong as I used to be).

I've read a few reviews saying the image quality suffers with the 2x. I'm going to have to try it when I'm using appropriate settings, to see if I cut it too much slack due to my ISO mistake.

I'll also be looking for the 1.4x TC to come back into stock.

 

[samir311]

I have the 100-400 GM but haven’t used it at all since I was sick but in a few weeks once I feel better I will try to go shoot out some photos and videos although Las Vegas is over 104 F every day where I got a sun explosion and been 10 days in bed .
but thanks for this post will save me buying the new 70-200 new GM lens

 

[Tim Mayo]

OK, I am delighted with the 2x teleconverter on the 70-200 GM II on an A1.

I was using too fast a shutter, which forced my ISO higher than I'd like (ISO 6400 and above) - silly setting mistake. I am not going to show the images I shot because of that mistake.

Focus is just as snappy as I'd like, even though the effective aperture is f/5.6 because of the teleconverter. I used the whole range from 140mm to 400mm, and got sharp images at each focal length. Bird eye AF works fine.

Being able to zoom to 400mm makes quite a difference, and being able to do it with a lens as light as the 70-200 (+ a bit for the TC), makes handheld shooting easy. I find the 200-600 rapidly gets too heavy for me (I'm not as strong as I used to be).

I've read a few reviews saying the image quality suffers with the 2x. I'm going to have to try it when I'm using appropriate settings, to see if I cut it too much slack due to my ISO mistake.

I'll also be looking for the 1.4x TC to come back into stock.

Glad to hear that your first impressions are very positive Tony! The internal zoom of the new 70-200 is a joy to use over the external zoom of the 100-400. I still really like the 100-400 but after using both the 200-600 and 70-200 2.8 GM II it feels quite cumbersome to use an external zooming lens.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

My experience since i received my 70-200 f2.8 GM II some months ago, and sold off my prior GM I, is the x1.4 and x2.0 Sony TC's work well but generally i find the x2.0 softer for action/flying birds, a little better for static subjects but I tend to use my x1.4 for 99% of my shots when i am looking for extra reach wherein i see very little fall off in sharpness/quality across the frame on my GII........on occasion when i need to go longer(perceived) i will implement ASC on the go from my programmed C1 button on my A1 with the x 1.4 which preserves the sharpness/quality(apart from a small degree of pixel loss)rather than consider going to the x2.0.

It is something i have personally seen during my time with Nikon with their x1.4 and 2.0 TC's but as i handhold my long lenses with elevated shutter speed at these long reaches "operator shake" becomes more of a factor unless you set those shutter speeds way up... +2000

From a shutter speed/autofocus perspective i find the GM II much faster due to the linear motors, which i also find on my 400mm, 200-600 to a lesser degree and 135mm f1.8 absolutely..........

 

[AlphaWorld]

I spent more time with the 70-200 GM II and the 2x, and I'm beginning to get better images with this combination. It definitely wants more light than the naked lens (understandably). I'm also getting better results by dropping my shutter speed from the speed I use for photographing birds in flight. If I drop down one stop in shutter speed it takes me down one stop in ISO, and the results are quite satisfying when photographing terrestrial animals.

I'll do a bit more practice with the 70-200 before tackling the 200-600. I am limited to weekend photography, and it's winter here, so I don't always have the light I need for this.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Yesterday, on a day with next to no cloud and bright sunshine, I got some good shots using the 2x and without. The 70-200 is sharper without, but the images with the 2x are good. A spot of extra sharpening helps I was experimenting with Adobe Smart Sharpen because I'm printing, and a bit of extra sharpening helps with print quality. But the shots without the 2x are sharper (surprising absolutely no one ).

 

[albpez378]

Since this question comes up now and again, I decided to put together a comparison between the latest Sony FE 70-200 F2.8 GM II lens with the 2x teleconverter attached (400mm, f/5.6) and the FE 100-400 GM F4.5-5.6 lens also at 400mm, f/5.6.

Surprisingly it's extremely close between them, although the teleconverter does introduce a lot of chromatic aberration when shooting high contrast images.

You'll find the full comparison over on the blog:

Sony 100-400 VS 70-200 F2.8 GM II With 2x Tele at 400mm - AlphaShooters.com

In this article I'll be comparing the Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS lens with the Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II with the 2x teleconverter attached.

www.alphashooters.com

Is anyone here shooting with the Sony FE 70-200 F2.8 GM II and either the 1.4x or 2x teleconverters? If you are, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this combination.

Great comparison. I am not sure which option to go with. I own the 70-200 GM II, shooting mainly sports aficionado and I noticed 200 mm is not enough for me. I am researching which way to go if TC 2x or another GM lens (100-400) which is more expensive. The images I saw in your blog looks great with the TC 2x.

 

[Brownie]

Great comparison. I am not sure which option to go with. I own the 70-200 GM II, shooting mainly sports aficionado and I noticed 200 mm is not enough for me. I am researching which way to go if TC 2x or another GM lens (100-400) which is more expensive. The images I saw in your blog looks great with the TC 2x.

Why not just add the 200-600? You already have 200, adding the TC only gets you halfway between the two. It's sealed, internal focus, and is nice and sharp even at full extension. Yes it's larger, but I don't find it difficult to hold at all although some may be bothered by it or unable to due to health. At 64, I have no problems with the lens. Sony's IS on their newer releases is finally catching up with the rest of the world.

594mm (no idea why!) at 1/250th
bees squash by telecast, on Flickr

600mm at 1/500th
DSC06154 by telecast, on Flickr

 

[albpez378]

Hi Brownie,

Wow! Great images! Thank you for the tips. Now that you mentioned the size, which camera bag do you use for 200-600 lens? It is a big lens. I will watch some YouTube reviews about this lens.

I wish Sony launch a lens like the Canon 100-500.

AL.

 

[Brownie]

Wow! Great images! Thank you for the tips. Now that you mentioned the size, which camera bag do you use for 200-600 lens?

I spent some time searching for the answer to that exact question. Backpacks work well. I purchased a Peak Design 30L and can carry the 200-600 along with the 24-105 mounted to a body. There's room for more if needed. The 200-600 fits vertically along one side, while the 24-105 and body set horizontally at the bottom. There's room for a few more lenses but I don't usually need anything else for that setup.

The PD Everyday backpack is well designed. The amount of crap I can get in it is astounding. For my 'normal' trips to the track, I can get the A7-IV with Sigma 100-400 mounted, A7R-III with 24-105 mounted, Tamron 17-28/2.8, Minolta Maxxum 80-200/2.8 APO G with the LA-EA5 mounted, batteries, straps, notebooks and pens, business cards, a small radio with headphones, Several forms of ear protection, an umbrella, a poncho, a water bottle, lens cleaning supplies, and a folding chair. Not kidding.

I've been thinking about taking it all out and getting a photo, but then I'd have to put it all back in!

 

[albpez378]

Would be great, I love the videos when photographers show their trip bags.

 

[Tim Mayo]

Hi Brownie,

Wow! Great images! Thank you for the tips. Now that you mentioned the size, which camera bag do you use for 200-600 lens? It is a big lens. I will watch some YouTube reviews about this lens.

I wish Sony launch a lens like the Canon 100-500.

AL.

This guide might help Alberto. Although it could do with an update:

Sony 200-600 Bag Guide - Alpha Shooters

The ultimate guide to the best bags for the Sony 200-600 G lens including photos of the lens packed inside with and without camera attached.

www.alphashooters.com

 

[Tim Mayo]

Great comparison. I am not sure which option to go with. I own the 70-200 GM II, shooting mainly sports aficionado and I noticed 200 mm is not enough for me. I am researching which way to go if TC 2x or another GM lens (100-400) which is more expensive. The images I saw in your blog looks great with the TC 2x.

Thank you. If you think 400mm will be enough reach then the 2x is an excellent low-cost option. There are rumors that a new 1.4x and 2x will be announced next month though, so you might want to hold off if you are in no rush as one would hope these will see a small improvement over the existing teleconverters. Otherwise like Tim said the 200-600 is a lovely lens if reach is important.

I wish Sony launch a lens like the Canon 100-500.

I own the RF 100-500 and although it is a great lens I much prefer using the internal zooming 200-600, it feels rather cumbersome using an external zoom lens after you have been spoiled by an internal zoom. That's if you don't mind the size and weight of course. But it still feels like a feather compared to the 600 F4

 

[Mike Renny]

Great review Tim. I own the 70-200 f2.8 GM II and absolutely love it! I fairly recently bought the 2X TC on ebay for £325 just before they announced the Mk II TC's and I have to say that the Mk I works really well with the Mk II lens. If the new Mk II 2.0X TC offers even better quality I will probably resell the Mk I (I'm sure I'll be able to get more or less what I paid for it!) and upgrade to the new Mk II !!

 

[Tim Mayo]

Great review Tim. I own the 70-200 f2.8 GM II and absolutely love it! I fairly recently bought the 2X TC on ebay for £325 just before they announced the Mk II TC's and I have to say that the Mk I works really well with the Mk II lens. If the new Mk II 2.0X TC offers even better quality I will probably resell the Mk I (I'm sure I'll be able to get more or less what I paid for it!) and upgrade to the new Mk II !!

Cheers Mike! It will be interesting to see that they improve with the updated teleconverters. Hopefully they sort out the chromatic aberration which is pretty nasty. I guess I'll have to update my comparison when they are out!

 

[albpez378]

Thank you. If you think 400mm will be enough reach then the 2x is an excellent low-cost option. There are rumors that a new 1.4x and 2x will be announced next month though, so you might want to hold off if you are in no rush as one would hope these will see a small improvement over the existing teleconverters. Otherwise like Tim said the 200-600 is a lovely lens if reach is important.


I own the RF 100-500 and although it is a great lens I much prefer using the internal zooming 200-600, it feels rather cumbersome using an external zoom lens after you have been spoiled by an internal zoom. That's if you don't mind the size and weight of course. But it still feels like a feather compared to the 600 F4

Thank you Timothy,

Great comments. I think waiting for a new version of the 100-400 GM combine with the new TC 2x will save me money and space, what I saw in your video was a great quality using the 2x TC and now that you mentioned there is some rumors about new TC I am not rushing to get one so I can wait for it.

Thank you guys !

 

[Brownie]

Thank you Timothy,

Great comments. I think waiting for a new version of the 100-400 GM combine with the new TC 2x will save me money and space, what I saw in your video was a great quality using the 2x TC and now that you mentioned there is some rumors about new TC I am not rushing to get one so I can wait for it.

Thank you guys !

How? It may save you some space, will cost more money. It costs more than the 200-600 right now, never mind the updated version. Add the TC and you be well over $3K US. I bought my 200-600 new, on sale for $1600.

 

[albpez378]

Hi Brownie,

You are correct, it cost more. I did not explain correctly, I meant instead of buying the 100-400 GM and the 200-600, it will be good option to buy the 100-400 GM plus the 2x TC, this combination save me money and space.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

As a professional engineer and long time photographer, and whilst I acknowledge the opinions of
others as to their views on the performance of x2 teleconverters, l feel such teleconverters will
always have an adverse effect on overall image resolution/sharpness....with some lesser degree perhaps
on static subjects.

At x1.4 it is clear the level of image quality impact is minimal and not of great concern, at x2.0 in my
view, and that of many others, is not the case ...that said at the end of the day it comes down to
experience Vs expectation. In principle based upon my experience I will not use a x2.0 teleconverter
in pursuit of the highest possible resolution/sharpness I can achieve..

It may be the case that some on this forum will have a differing view and reference matters such
as unecessary pixel peeping and the like, , and whilst I acknowledge this may be a contraversial
statement , and developing trends in lens quality is perhaps reducing the difference, ultimately
light physics dictate this must be the case.

 

[Malsam]

i bought both TC to avoid getting another lens on 70200gm2 and know that it works well over the older 200-600 or 100-400. I needed a zoom to complement my long tele prime and also a 2nd lens off tripod to capture a wider view. I think a 35-550 would be nice, to get the occasional wider shots for my wildlife/avian photography. 100-400 would be good too but that aperture wouldn't allow me to get any better results with a TC. If I choose 1 lens maybe I will go with the 100-400 without TC and get another wider prime. I'm happy with the performance of the 70200GM2 with both the TCs (even 2x which is primarily on it to get a 140-400 f5.6 use)

 

[AlphaWorld]

i bought both TC to avoid getting another lens on 70200gm2 and know that it works well over the older 200-600 or 100-400. I needed a zoom to complement my long tele prime and also a 2nd lens off tripod to capture a wider view. I think a 35-550 would be nice, to get the occasional wider shots for my wildlife/avian photography. 100-400 would be good too but that aperture wouldn't allow me to get any better results with a TC. If I choose 1 lens maybe I will go with the 100-400 without TC and get another wider prime. I'm happy with the performance of the 70200GM2 with both the TCs (even 2x which is primarily on it to get a 140-400 f5.6 use)

Do you want a single lens that goes from 35-500mm? That is an enormous range, and would come with a flock of aberrations.

There are very good reasons why professional zooms generally cover about a x3 range (24-70, 70-200, 200-600), occasionally about a x4 range (100-400). 35-500 is over 14x.

A wide prime (perhaps on a second body?) sounds like a good idea.

I get good results with the 1.4x on the 70-200 GM II, but to get good results with the 2x I find I need lots of light - full sun on a bright day with next to no clouds works. Shooting in shadows, or with heavy clouds, and the image is noticeably softer.

 

[Malsam]

Do you want a single lens that goes from 35-500mm? That is an enormous range, and would come with a flock of aberrations.

There are very good reasons why professional zooms generally cover about a x3 range (24-70, 70-200, 200-600), occasionally about a x4 range (100-400). 35-500 is over 14x.

A wide prime (perhaps on a second body?) sounds like a good idea.

I get good results with the 1.4x on the 70-200 GM II, but to get good results with the 2x I find I need lots of light - full sun on a bright day with next to no clouds works. Shooting in shadows, or with heavy clouds, and the image is noticeably softer.

I don't mean to get a lens covering the entire range of 35-550 but rather having a lens that fall in between those. My bridge camera is doing right now and yes, just like the 70200gm2, need a lot of light. Seems like 200-600 will have the same limitation especially a TC is used on it.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I use the 200-600 (my only Sony lens so far), but the 100-400 seems like a stellar choice due to its smaller size. We should all be thankful we can still get a Sony 100-400. Today Nikon announced they are no longer taking orders for their Z 100-400 because they can't make enough to meet the demand!

Nikon temporarily suspended orders for the Nikkor Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S lens because of a "large number of orders which exceeds our expectations" - Nikon Rumors

Nikon Japan temporarily suspended orders for the Nikkor Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S lens because of a “large number of orders which exceeds our expectations“. The Nikkor Z 100-400mm lens is currently in stock at: Adorama B&H Amazon Calumet (DE) Foto Erhardt (DE) CameraCanada (CA) Expect...

nikonrumors.com

 

[RHerr]

OK, I am delighted with the 2x teleconverter on the 70-200 GM II on an A1.

I was using too fast a shutter, which forced my ISO higher than I'd like (ISO 6400 and above) - silly setting mistake. I am not going to show the images I shot because of that mistake.

Focus is just as snappy as I'd like, even though the effective aperture is f/5.6 because of the teleconverter. I used the whole range from 140mm to 400mm, and got sharp images at each focal length. Bird eye AF works fine.

Being able to zoom to 400mm makes quite a difference, and being able to do it with a lens as light as the 70-200 (+ a bit for the TC), makes handheld shooting easy. I find the 200-600 rapidly gets too heavy for me (I'm not as strong as I used to be).

I've read a few reviews saying the image quality suffers with the 2x. I'm going to have to try it when I'm using appropriate settings, to see if I cut it too much slack due to my ISO mistake.

I'll also be looking for the 1.4x TC to come back into stock.

Hi, I am considering putting a 2x on a 200-600 with A7IV which i use for bird photography. What is your opinion regarding the 2x on this lens? regards

 

[MrFotoFool]

Hi, I am considering putting a 2x on a 200-600 with A7IV which i use for bird photography. What is your opinion regarding the 2x on this lens? regards

Considering the small aperture, adding a 2x will only give you a maximum aperture of f13. I think that might be too small, unless you only photograph in bright sun. I use the 1.4x with this lens, which is okay, but I think I would only use a 2x on a large aperture lens (f2.8 or maybe f4).

 

[Brownie]

Considering the small aperture, adding a 2x will only give you a maximum aperture of f13. I think that might be too small, unless you only photograph in bright sun. I use the 1.4x with this lens, which is okay, but I think I would only use a 2x on a large aperture lens (f2.8 or maybe f4).

This ^. I would use it on the lens, but you're going to be limited due to the aperture.

I have seen some extraordinary shots with that combination, but a lot of stinkers too. Someone on (I think) Fred Miranda noted that they bought one and it wasn't very good, so returned it with the intent of going to the 1.4, They decided to do an exchange at the last minute and the second one was fantastic, and so were his sample images. Understanding that was an internet post, this could point to either a significant variation between copies or user error. In any event, if you do buy one get it from a place with a liberal return policy just in case.

Conversely, I've never heard a bad thing about the 1.4. I have the same combination, A74 and 200-600, and as much fun as it would be to have 1200mm, I've decided on the 1.4.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I have tried the x1.4 and x2.0 on the 70-200mm f 2.4 Mk II, 400mm x f2.8 and 200-600mm.

The x1.4 works fine on all three but in my opinion can be soft to unworkable under conditions of low contrast, lower ambient light levels or low dynamic range cameras if used with the 200-600mm-Not totally off the table, but requiring near ideal conditions to provide usable images.

The x2.0 works Ok on the 70-200mm and 400mm but again needs good to near ideal conditions for best performance. Even under such conditions the resulting images will have noticeably lower sharpness compared to those with the x1.4 and wide open/sweet spot images(No TC)

If its a question of achieving the sharpest images possible, the x1.4 will give you more than acceptable images on the 70-200mm and 400mm but for the x2.0, in my book, this in general is a no no, and is unlikely to provide repeatable and/or acceptable sharpness during a shoot.

In owning both the x1.4 and the X2.0 (Sony do not manufacture the x1.7 mm), I have used the x2.0 in the field on little more than a handful of occasions.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I can confirm Deleted Member 5003's comments on the 70-200 and 200-600. You need plenty of light to get the 2x + 200-600 to produce good images - give it full noon sun with zero clouds, and you can shoot 1200mm at f/13 (and the A7RV's subject recognition works, even at f/13!) - sharpness is a bit reduced, and you may also be facing heat haze! The 70-200 + 2x works best under the same conditions, but can tolerate somewhat less light (it's at f/5.6, which helps!).

Lower light / lower contrast and the 200-600 + 2x struggles. I took the 2x off, shot with the bare lens, and cropped.

The 1.4x is less demanding. I've used the 70-200 + 1.4x in somewhat dimmer conditions and been happy with the results. When the auto ISO was creeping over 4000 I was seeing some background noise, but DXO DeepPrime got rid of it. The 200-600 + 1.4x still needs a bit more light, but again, a bit less light is OK.