Help me with my next lens choice

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Sony A1 and my wildlife lens now is the 200-600. Coming from apsc I have several apsc lenses. One for wildlife is the Sony 70-350 apsc. I have not used it at all on the a1 yet either. I’ve been eyeballing the Sony 100-400 but not sure if it overlaps my 200-600 too much. I also have a 1.4 tc. The 70-200 is also appealing. Hope to be on a Pangolin trip in 2023 if all works well. Also own the Sony 85mm 1.8 prime. The 600 prime is not in the cards just yet. Lol

would love to hear some opinions. I see several here own the 200-600 and also the 100-400. Would love to hear how well they work together inn ones kit.

Thank you
Joe
 
I'm not sure this will be much help, but . . . I have an A9 with the 200-600 and just recently added the 100-400. My reason is that I am not strong enough to handhold the 200-600 for any length of time. I'm going on a trip next month where I'm not sure I'll be able to use my monogimbal. So I bought the 100-400 to have an alternative I can handhold. I am happy with both lenses but I see them as alternatives, not a kit for a distant trip. For that I'd take either one (the 100-400 with TC), but not both, plus something like a 70-200.
 
@lablover27 , I would recommend to get 70-200/2.8 from Sony or 70-180/2.8 from Tamron becasue you would need something for darker conditions and closer objects. You probably, would not be in a boat all the time but also on game drives. Animals are used to vehicles in Chobe and will come close. You would also need something for the groups of animals (elephant herd, tower of giraffes, etc) and even landscapes are nice there. Believe me, 200mm will be sometimes too long!
Pangolin built a new hide and I think 150-200mm will be perfect for that. You will need also something for dusk, f2.8 would be good! And you will need even a wide-angle lens to make photos of elephants from a boat. You will come very close to them. Steve has one of such pictures. Depending on the budget you can have a look at Tamron again (35-150/f2-2.8 or go even wider). You will also want to make some shots of the hotel and fireplace.. For that I would also recommend a better f-stop to catch the atmosphere. Or perhaps, you want to photograph the milky way there? In some Botswana parks the skies are without any polution. So, a lot depends also on your itinerary. The same applies if you go with Pangolin to Kenya.
I wish your trip will take place!
 
How often do you shoot the 200-600 at 200? I personally never use that lens at anything other than 500-600 and very rarely need less than 400. The 100-400 isn’t much use in my opinion if you have the 200-600. I do have the new 70-200 and it’s amazing for that focal length and with a 1.4 it’s more versatile than the 100-400 if you already have the 200-600. I have the 600GM and if I wanted a second body and I’m out shooting wildlife I’d likely have the 200-600 on the second body. I guess in short unless you buy the 600GM you already have the best choice.
 
Last edited:
I shoot Nikon so can't directly compare but conceptually I'll add this. I have both a 200-500 and a 100-400. The 100-400 is a Sigma lens. There is overlap for sure. However, there is a significant weight savings on the 100-400. I carry the lighter lens if I plan to be walking a great distance (over 5 miles), if it is really hot and I just don't feel like a heavier lens and if I am unlikely to be shooting small birds or the like. Would I recommend everyone have this combo? I couldn't say without knowing more about the individual's situation, photography and just what they wanted.

I don't regret buying the 100-400 but honestly, I still carry the 200-500 most of the time.
 
How often do you shoot the 200-600 at 200?
Bird-Phtographer probably not often. But @lablover27 mentioned he is going to do a safari trip with Pangolin. I assume, it will be on the Chobe river and in Chobe national park, perhaps also in Khwai. And in Africa it is a different story. Unless the visitors are only birders and if the leopard walks 1m from your vehicle you just ignore it. It depends on the interests, of course! If you want to shoot elephants, giraffes, buffalo etc.. , too then you need to have the other focal length. They (Pangolin and other photographic tour-operators) take wide-angle lens for the boat cruise! So, even 70mm is too long!
I've been 15 times to Africa that is why I allow me to recommend something.
 
Bird-Phtographer probably not often. But @lablover27 mentioned he is going to do a safari trip with Pangolin. I assume, it will be on the Chobe river and in Chobe national park, perhaps also in Khwai. And in Africa it is a different story. Unless the visitors are only birders and if the leopard walks 1m from your vehicle you just ignore it. It depends on the interests, of course! If you want to shoot elephants, giraffes, buffalo etc.. , too then you need to have the other focal length. They (Pangolin and other photographic tour-operators) take wide-angle lens for the boat cruise! So, even 70mm is too long!
I've been 15 times to Africa that is why I allow me to recommend something.
All very valid points. Thank you. I’ve also been checking out the 35mm g master. I like birds but also love taking people pictures
 
Another opinion. I have the 200-600 which I always shoot at 600mm, but it's heavy and I cannot handhold for long periods waiting for something to happen, tho a monopod with a shooter's yolk makes it easy to use. Also have the 100-400 which I use, but almost always with a 1.4 converter. For just walking around, I use the 70-350 which I adore. It gives me reasonable reach, is fast enough to keep up with the a1, weighs nothing and best of all, nobody looks at it twice. Also have a Sony 90mm 2.8 macro lens which is excellent.
 
I appri
Bird-Phtographer probably not often. But @lablover27 mentioned he is going to do a safari trip with Pangolin. I assume, it will be on the Chobe river and in Chobe national park, perhaps also in Khwai. And in Africa it is a different story. Unless the visitors are only birders and if the leopard walks 1m from your vehicle you just ignore it. It depends on the interests, of course! If you want to shoot elephants, giraffes, buffalo etc.. , too then you need to have the other focal length. They (Pangolin and other photographic tour-operators) take wide-angle lens for the boat cruise! So, even 70mm is too long!
I've been 15 times to Africa that is why I allow me to recommend something.
Good points but if 70mm is to long the 100-400 brings no value over the 200-600. Maybe a 24-105 is a better compliment lens.
 
Another opinion. I have the 200-600 which I always shoot at 600mm, but it's heavy and I cannot handhold for long periods waiting for something to happen, tho a monopod with a shooter's yolk makes it easy to use. Also have the 100-400 which I use, but almost always with a 1.4 converter. For just walking around, I use the 70-350 which I adore. It gives me reasonable reach, is fast enough to keep up with the a1, weighs nothing and best of all, nobody looks at it twice. Also have a Sony 90mm 2.8 macro lens which is excellent.
I need to pop that 70-350 I have on the camera and see how it fairs up. Wife uses it on her a6400 and its a darn sharp lens.
 
Maybe a 24-105 is a better compliment lens
is a great idea!
that 70-350
it is definitely sharp and light lens but please keep in mind that for travel you will need some fast lens with better aperture like f1.8-f4. In Africa you will be photographing sunsets and animals in dusk and dawn. Nocturnal animals are normally seen in that time (short before sunrise and after sunset). It is kind of condition where you still have light but not much.
You don't need to have fast lens for birds (well, normally) becasue they are sleeping when it is dark. But you need to consider it for hyenas. lions and leopards, for example.
 
is a great idea!

it is definitely sharp and light lens but please keep in mind that for travel you will need some fast lens with better aperture like f1.8-f4. In Africa you will be photographing sunsets and animals in dusk and dawn. Nocturnal animals are normally seen in that time (short before sunrise and after sunset). It is kind of condition where you still have light but not much.
You don't need to have fast lens for birds (well, normally) becasue they are sleeping when it is dark. But you need to consider it for hyenas. lions and leopards, for example.
I see 2 new lenses in my future. Haha. Thank you

edit, I’m wondering if a wide prime might be a better choice as I can get it faster than 2.8. Is a 2.8 zoom fast enough?
 
Last edited:
When I had the 200-500mm and the 80-400mm I used the later lens the most as the view angle was too narrow with the 200-500mm lens. I often see photos of bald eagles taken with a 600mm lens that over crops the birds and leaves no space around them and they might as well be in a zoo.

With smaller animals at closer distances I would not be particularly happy with a 100-400mm and I would want to have a 70-200mm f/2.8 and two teleconverters in my pack. Big difference between a 70mm view angle of 29 degrees and 100mm focal length with a view angle of 20 degrees. If you want to show an animal in its environment this is important.

For me it is a question of the 80-400mm and the 500mm PF or the 600mm F-mount lens but the 80-400mm is always in my backpack. There is also the matter of adding a teleconverter to have different options in terms of both view angle and image magnification.
 
When I had the 200-500mm and the 80-400mm I used the later lens the most as the view angle was too narrow with the 200-500mm lens. I often see photos of bald eagles taken with a 600mm lens that over crops the birds and leaves no space around them and they might as well be in a zoo.

With smaller animals at closer distances I would not be particularly happy with a 100-400mm and I would want to have a 70-200mm f/2.8 and two teleconverters in my pack. Big difference between a 70mm view angle of 29 degrees and 100mm focal length with a view angle of 20 degrees. If you want to show an animal in its environment this is important.

For me it is a question of the 80-400mm and the 500mm PF or the 600mm F-mount lens but the 80-400mm is always in my backpack. There is also the matter of adding a teleconverter to have different options in terms of both view angle and image magnification.
I see the 70-200 ii in my future as well as maybe the sigma 24-70 That has real good reviews. If I could only find the new Sony 70-200 ii that would be nice. Adorama has a open box at a nice price but anything used or open box always makes me nervous.
 
Sony A1 and my wildlife lens now is the 200-600. Coming from apsc I have several apsc lenses. One for wildlife is the Sony 70-350 apsc. I have not used it at all on the a1 yet either. I’ve been eyeballing the Sony 100-400 but not sure if it overlaps my 200-600 too much. I also have a 1.4 tc. The 70-200 is also appealing. Hope to be on a Pangolin trip in 2023 if all works well. Also own the Sony 85mm 1.8 prime. The 600 prime is not in the cards just yet. Lol

would love to hear some opinions. I see several here own the 200-600 and also the 100-400. Would love to hear how well they work together inn ones kit.

Thank you
Joe
Everyone should also have a 70-200 f2.8...🦘
 
Sony A1 and my wildlife lens now is the 200-600. Coming from apsc I have several apsc lenses. One for wildlife is the Sony 70-350 apsc. I have not used it at all on the a1 yet either. I’ve been eyeballing the Sony 100-400 but not sure if it overlaps my 200-600 too much. I also have a 1.4 tc. The 70-200 is also appealing. Hope to be on a Pangolin trip in 2023 if all works well. Also own the Sony 85mm 1.8 prime. The 600 prime is not in the cards just yet. Lol

would love to hear some opinions. I see several here own the 200-600 and also the 100-400. Would love to hear how well they work together inn ones kit.

Thank you
Joe
Me: A1, A7R4, 14mm GM, 24mmGM, 55mm, 135mm F1.8, 100-400GM, 200-600G, 1.4xTC, 2xTC
For birding, 200-600.
General wildlife, 100-400, carry the 1.4xTC.
In low light (early morning, late afternoon, in a forest), 135mm F1.8.
All of these lenses have fast AF.

I went on a birding trip last Aug with the 100-400, but the birds weren't close enough. In Sept I bought the 200-600. I am happy. I would never carry both the 100-400 and the 200-600 on a trip. I would have to choose between 100-400, and 135+200-600. There is a lot of overlap between 100-400 and 200-600. You might consider getting the 135mm instead of the 100-400.

If I had to travel light, I might take 24mm, 100-400, 1.4xTC, handheld.
 
How often do you shoot the 200-600 at 200? I personally never use that lens at anything other than 500-600 and very rarely need less than 400. The 100-400 isn’t much use in my opinion if you have the 200-600. I do have the new 70-200 and it’s amazing for that focal length and with a 1.4 it’s more versatile than the 100-400 if you already have the 200-600. I have the 600GM and if I wanted a second body and I’m out shooting wildlife I’d likely have the 200-600 on the second body. I guess in short unless you buy the 600GM you already have the best choice.
A while back I I was considering getting a 500PF due to weight savings and some better IQ. After looking at the last year's worth of data in my library, I found that I shot at 500mm about 70% of the time however, the other 30% was at somewhere less and many at 200mm. Interestingly a number of photos in my favorites folder were shot with this lens at somewhere between 200 and 400. I have a 100-400 but honestly, when a photo opportunity presents itself, there rarely is enough time to swap out lenses. For that reason I decided to stick with the 200-500 for now. If (when) Nikon comes out with a 200-600Z mount and if it is as good or better than the 200-500 I'll probably sell off most of my FMount stuff and go mirrorless.
 
A while back I I was considering getting a 500PF due to weight savings and some better IQ. After looking at the last year's worth of data in my library, I found that I shot at 500mm about 70% of the time however, the other 30% was at somewhere less and many at 200mm. Interestingly a number of photos in my favorites folder were shot with this lens at somewhere between 200 and 400. I have a 100-400 but honestly, when a photo opportunity presents itself, there rarely is enough time to swap out lenses. For that reason I decided to stick with the 200-500 for now. If (when) Nikon comes out with a 200-600Z mount and if it is as good or better than the 200-500 I'll probably sell off most of my FMount stuff and go mirrorless.
I expect the 200-600mm to be similar to the 200-500mm but better.
I'm going to wait for the 200-600mm too.
For now - the 70-200mm Z lens is fantastic and well worth considering.
The only other lens I might consider is the 800mm Z lens...🦘
 
Well I ended up getting the following….for now. 😉
Sony 85mm G 1.8
Sony 24-70 GM
Sony 70-200GM oss ii yes I found one local.

Honestly I’m still on the fence for the 100-400 with 1.4 tc and or a 135mm GM. I like doing portrait stuff once in a blue moon but think the 85mm has me covered.
I’m also eyeballing the Sony 20mm 1.8 or the 24mm GM. Yes, I can be a Astro junkie once in awhile too. The 100-400 with 1.4 tc sounds nice for days I don’t want the weight of the 200-600.

last question. 2.0 tc. Yes or no? On the 2.8 70-200 might be not too shabby.

Joe
 
Well I ended up getting the following….for now. 😉
Sony 85mm G 1.8
Sony 24-70 GM
Sony 70-200GM oss ii yes I found one local.

Honestly I’m still on the fence for the 100-400 with 1.4 tc and or a 135mm GM. I like doing portrait stuff once in a blue moon but think the 85mm has me covered.
I’m also eyeballing the Sony 20mm 1.8 or the 24mm GM. Yes, I can be a Astro junkie once in awhile too. The 100-400 with 1.4 tc sounds nice for days I don’t want the weight of the 200-600.

last question. 2.0 tc. Yes or no? On the 2.8 70-200 might be not too shabby.

Joe
i'm not normally a fan of teleconverters or superzooms - but they do save weight.
I dont know anyone that regrets getting a 70-200mm lens.
The 85mm should be good if you shoot a lot of portraits and the 20mm would be good for landscape and astro.
Remember dont buy gear just for the sake of it - make it work for you...🦘
 
Back
Top