QuestionNew Sony 100-400 f/4.5 GM - worth it over my 70-350 for birds, or a used 200-600?

Saw the announcement this week. A 100-400 that stays at f/4.5 all the way through. I shoot shorebirds and ospreys on the beach with my a6400 and the 70-350, which is a LOVELY little lens but I'm always wanting more, especially early morning when the light is poor.

Options as I see them. 1) save up for the new GM, 2) a used 200-600 from KEH, 3) stop complaining. The GM is going to be expensive, I'm sure. Is the constant f/4.5 a REAL advantage over 5.6-6.3 for birds or just a spec sheet thing? And does it even make sense on a crop body?

Steve

steve_m_1962 said:

1. stop complaining

Option 3 Steve lol. No but seriously, the 70-350 on APS-C is already 525mm equiv and tiny. The new GM is a full frame pro lens, I reckon it'd be a lot of lens hanging off an a6400

Get closer to the birds.

f/4.5 against f/6.3 is one stop. At dawn this is the difference between ISO 3200 and 6400, or between 1/1000 and 1/500. It is real, but it is not magic. For a constant f/4.5 400mm on full frame I expect serious money and serious weight. I have not handled it, so I only comment on the numbers. On a6400 the bigger limit for birds in flight will be the camera AF, honestly, not the lens.

dmitri_k said:

On a6400 the bigger limit for birds in flight will be the camera AF

Hadn't thought about that. My a6400 does miss a lot of the ospreys when they come off the water, I always blamed myself. So a new lens on an old body might be the WRONG way round?

Yes, in my opinion. Body first for birds in flight. Lens first for sitting birds.

5amJim said:

Get closer to the birds.

Steve, I'll get ribbed for saying it on a Sony thread, but a used 200-600 is the Sony cousin of my Nikon 180-600, and that whole category is the best-value wildlife glass ever made. Reach beats a stop of aperture for shorebirds nine times out of ten IMHO. The birds on a beach don't let you walk up to them, whatever Jim says, and you can't crop your way to 600mm from 350 without paying for it in detail.

Story for you. When I swapped the old 200-500 for the 180-600 last November, the thing I noticed wasn't sharpness, it was that I stopped cropping. Every heron, every hawk on a saguaro, framed in camera. That's worth more than a stop of light on a sunny Florida beach, which I'm told you have a few of.

The f/4.5 GM is a beautiful thing for folks paying for it with somebody else's money... If I were you I'd save for a newer body first, then the 200-600, and keep the 70-350 for when you're walking the beach with the grandkids.

• Walt

WaltK_AZ said:

save for a newer body first

Agree with Walt, on that and on reach for shorebirds. And crop is so underrated for birds! The 70-350 on an a6400 is honestly a great combo, I'd put money into a better body before more glass.

WaltK_AZ said:

Reach beats a stop of aperture for shorebirds nine times out of ten

I'd mostly agree, with one caveat. Speaking from the MFT side, where the 300mm f/4 gives me 600mm equivalent in a package I'll happily carry across the fen all day... the number that matters on a cold estuary morning is how much you're willing to carry back to the car. The 200-600 is a big, heavy lens. Have a think about where you'll actually be shooting from before you decide reach is everything. A lens left at home has no reach at all.

The other thing nobody mentions with shorebirds is the tide. Most of my best waders, dunlin, knot, the odd curlew sandpiper in autumn, come from sitting still on a rising tide and letting the birds come to me, not from having more millimetres. An hour before high water, low down, back to the wind. The 70-350 at 525mm equivalent will do a great deal more than you'd think if the birds are walking towards you rather than away.

I don't even shoot birds and I want the GM. This is the problem. I'd use it for about two weekends and then it'd sit next to the 85 judging me

steve_m_1962 said:

1. a used 200-600 from KEH

Rented a 200-600 for a ranch shoot last year. Great lens, heavy, and I was glad to hand it back on Monday. Rent before you buy, Steve. Any of them. A weekend rental is cheap and tells you more than any review, especially about whether you'll actually carry the thing down the beach at 6am or leave it in the car.

Thank you all. Sounds like the honest answer is the a6400 is the weak link and not the lens. Going to keep the 70-350, watch KEH for a used body, and get closer to the birds like Jim said (within reason, Walt).

Steve

Good man.