SONY 70-200mm VS 100-400mm - G-Master COMPARISON TEST

Testing the Sony 70-200 vs Sony 100-400mm G-Master Lenses
Support with MERCH: davidmanning.co
*FREE TRIAL OF THE BEST MUSIC: bit.ly/epidemicsoundDM
My Camera Gear List: bit.ly/DMCameraKit
My GoPro Gear List: bit.ly/DMgopro
My Secret to KZbin: www.tubebuddy.com/DavidMannin...
INSTA - / david_manning
TWITTER - / david_manning
The super dope leather camera strap
Clever Supply Co: cleversupply.co/?ref=MKNDV
Use Code "MANNING" for 10% DISCOUNT
ALL MY GEAR:
*Main camera: Sony a7SIII - amzn.to/2Ewnye5
*Main lens: 16-35mm - amzn.to/2YBXFAF
*All around lens: 24-70mm - amzn.to/2FX3phH
*Long lens: 70-200mm - amzn.to/3hxeUKM
*35mm - amzn.to/2Qtf1uM
*55mm - amzn.to/3jhsz9k
*85mm - amzn.to/3jkYcyP
*90mm - amzn.to/3hxd0d4
*Pocket camera: Sony ZV-1 - amzn.to/34yhIne
*Action camera: GoPro Hero 9 - bit.ly/GoProH9
*Action cam accessories - kit.co/david_manning/david-ma...
*360 camera: Insta360 ONE R - amzn.to/31AcmWR
*PolarPro Apex Base - bit.ly/DMvlogtripod
*Joby Ballhead - amzn.to/3hgHQ9j
*Travel tripod - amzn.to/34wY8b3
*My studio light - amzn.to/3d4ZxYG
*Studio soft box - amzn.to/3gLQX10
I LIKE MAIL. SEND ME SOMETHING!
David Manning Vlog
PO Box 2622
Valley Center, CA 92082
CHAPTERS:
00:00 - Intro
03:50 - Shooting With the Girls
04:45 - Sample VIDEO Footage
05:15 - Physical Differences
09:50 - Sample PHOTO Comparison
12:40 - Wrap-up and Final Thoughts
15:34 - Super Cute Kid
*Most links in the description are affiliate links meaning I earn a small commission when you purchase.
#davidmanning #photography #videography #sony #lens

[@alphaartisan]

I recently rented the 100-400 and it completely changed the way I was shooting. You can stand in one spot and shoot for an hour in the city and never get bored. It’s a lot of fun.

[@MT-xt]

This is exactly the same scenario I'm thinking about. Cheers, bro, hopefully u've got of nice shots there (y)

[@OlleyP]

I am a Canon guy. I don't even plan to buy a new lens. Why did I just watch it from the beginning to the end??? Dude, your videos are RIVETING! LOL

[@DavidManningvlog]

#ENDGANG!!!! You're a legend and THANK YOU SIR!

[@Token_Nerd]

Canon has both these lenses tho

[@fatimauddin5651]

cus ur secretly crushing on Sony ;)

[@trannel73]

I’m a Canon guy as well. :D Don’t see an issue watching Sony reviews with having exactly the same lens specs in the canon world.

[@kathyweigelhi-lophotovideo2984]

I absolutely love my Sony 100-400…so versatile and I often grab that lens more than my 200-600. When traveling to Africa weight is severely limited so I actually bring my 100-400 over the 200-600.

[@nuiyoubysusanametzger3759]

I have used the 100-400 in event-phootoography and loved how much I could do with it in terms of capturing raw expressions of the attendees.

[@phucmapvlog]

In my opinion, I would see them in different realms. Obviously there is some overlap, but the longer focal lengths would be for things that you couldn’t get as close to, such as out in nature

[@DavidManningvlog]

They're for sure interesting trying to interchange them with each other. Both super fun to shoot though!

[@vikrammalhotra2177]

Awesome video. I recently got the tamron 70-180 f2.8 to find out if this range would suit my needs. I usually take some family portraits while traveling but apart from that its mostly nature/landscape photography. For this use case, I used the telephoto end of 70-180 quite a lot and towards the telephoto end, I always got frustrated that I couldn’t zoom in more. So to keep my sanity, I sold out tamron 70-180 and now planning to get Sony 100-400.

[@LMActionsports]

Dang man you just convinced me to get the 100-400 as my next lens. I am impressed with how good the bokeh is at 300 and 400mm.

[@KarenVaisman1]

I wish you had tested the 70-200 w 1.4 tc. Do you get more compression like 100-400?

[@koburn_]

Great video my man!! I am debating between the 2 and I think you helped me decide to get the 100-400. Like you said, the 85mm prime is perfect for portraits. The 100-400 can be so versatile! Thank you!!

[@thomaan]

Have owned both 70-200mm f4 and f2.8 GM from Sony. Very good lenses but when I got the 100-400mm GM I sold them both. Really versatile and superbly sharp lens. Also you get very good bokeh with this lens. When I just go for portraits i bring the 50 or 85 f1.4.

[@vladimirivanov6353]

Thanks for comment!!!

[@davidjones8070]

Got the Tamron 70-180 on the portrait end and 100-400 is next...plus have you tried any macro shots. It’s pretty sweet!

[@margaretannhalleck1326]

I use the 100-400 mm on my a7rIV and I love the reach it gives me for landscapes. Use primes for portraits. Jared Polin just posted a video (think it was on Sony a1), and he mentioned that Sony’s 70-200 lens was a bit dated and they should consider releasing a new version.

[@DavidManningvlog]

Yeah, I think in the world of lenses, we're going to see more big leaps soon. Canon's 70-200 gets super compact now and I think Sony will for sure have a good updated competitor out soon👍

[@fy08chief]

I have a 150-600 Sigma C that I love for action shots outdoors (horse events). Unfortunately it’s not fast enough for indoor events so I’m thinking about the 70-200 2.8. The big lens was actually too much when I tried it out in Glacier Park in early fall also so I’m wondering if the 70-200 will be fun for landscapes. I’m also shooting cropped sensor still so everything might change once I can upgrade to a full frame body.

[@DavidManningvlog]

Oh man, that jump to full frame is such a game changer on the wide end! But a bummer that you'll lose that extra bit of reach on the long end. Either way, you'll be pumped when you do make the leap!

[@RyanSotelo]

Awesome video! Was struggling with the same decision 😂 I also prefer using the 85 so maybe having that 100-400 for extra reach would be worth it, esp for landscape

[@Jwitherow1964]

You hooked me at the first look I watch and enjoy you take on the 100-400, I own this lens and it is absolutely amazing

[@Corman911]

Dude, you are killing it with the vlog style clips. More of that please. One of my favorite styles of photography is to shoot my subjects when they do not know the are being photographed. It brings such natural photos that I really enjoy. That is where the 100-400 would be very handy.

[@DavidManningvlog]

That's exactly what I'm thinking Cory! How cool of a street photography series would it be with this lens?! People that are half way down the block having no clue the moment they're living has just been captured on camera. Candid moments are my favorite!

[@peej6419]

I own the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter. Still f5.6 from 200-400mm.

[@Ponemnogu_o_Mnogom]

Great idea. Need to read about convertors

[@3ddesign216]

2x teleconverter = 400mm, then crop mode = 600mm :- ))))

[@tomhawkes1818]

I’m a weird one in this conversation - looking at 100-400 and 70-200 f/4, I enjoy shooting sports and do so fairly often so 400mm will come in extremely handy but not afraid to crop in from 200 if I was to get the 70-200. Reason I’m looking at the 70-200 f4 is due to having constant f4 throughout as it would suit me better for portraits, street etc. I currently have a 24-105 f4 and a 20mm f1.8. Please tell me your thoughts If u have any

[@DavidManningvlog]

I had the 70-200 f/4 for years and that's a killer lens Tom! It'll also save you a bit of money over the 100-400👍

[@mm_137]

This perspective was really helpful! Thanks 😁

[@terencemorrissey4413]

David, what suction cup did you have attached to your van?

[@mountains_and_moors]

Just the vid I was after... popping the kettle on and coming back to watch with a cuppa. Really Interested in the 100-400mm lens for my Sony a7R IV 😁

[@DavidManningvlog]

It's an incredible lens! And paired with the A7R IV, you could shoot something at 400 and then add in a crop after that to get ridiculously close!🙌

[@PHOENIXOVERLAND]

How has the SeaSucker with the a7siii been holding up? I would love to do that but it scares the living crap outta me. would you recommend the 4.5 in version or go for the 6 in version with the a7siii? A video on that would be amazing

[@DavidManningvlog]

The 6" suction cup is on the way! Once I have that, I'll let you know!

[@rifleman542]

You never mentioned the significant weight differences between the two, the 70-200mm weighs in at about 4.91 lbs which is even heavier than the 200-600mm due to the wider aperture requiring heavier lens elements whereas the 100-400mm weighs in at about 3.06 lbs which is considerably lighter which is especially preferable while traveling.

[@DavidManningvlog]

Great point! The 100-400 is for sure the more travel friendly lens here👍

[@GrimTactics6226]

The 70-200 weighs 3.2 pounds while the 100-400 weighs 3.1 pounds there’s not a significant weight difference at all

[@ainjuhl4509]

@@GrimTactics6226 there are two versions bud

[@GrimTactics6226]

@@ainjuhl4509 yes and the one they're referring to in this video weighs 52.3 oz. otherwise 3.26875 lbs. its on the official sony website if you need me to link it bud

[@user-dt2io5dz2e]

Super useful comparison video!Thanks a lot! I think that 100-400 reach, and the size compared to 200-600, makes the100-400 a better choice for me. I need this lens mostly for landscape, astronomy and wildlife. I love that 2.8 aperture, but maybe the reach is more important to me.

[@MotorsportCreative]

Definitely depends on what you shoot.

[@user-dt2io5dz2e]

@@MotorsportCreative yeah, I totally agree. If I shoot more people I would go for 70-200 f2.8. If I shoot more birds, I will go for 200-600. What I want is a versatile travelling telephoto lens. A 70-200 f4 is actually a good choice, for its light weight. But based on my experience of travelling with my Canon 70-200 f4, there are lots of circumstances that 200mm is not long enough for me. For example, I want shoot some details of a faraway mountain, which you cannot reach by foot. Of course, if you have a helicopter, that will be another story. A Mavic pro is ideal for video, but not for stunning images.

[@PFB-yo6wi]

Really good video, this. Informative. I actually have the 100-400 and was considering swapping it for the 70-200 BUT, I also have the 135 f1.8 (staggering lens), 85 F1.4, 50 F1.2 (WOW) and therefore all bases are covered - so this video has convinced me to stay put. Thank you.

[@DavidManningvlog]

Solid setup man! Yeah, with all of that, I would say you're covered!

[@janiscollette1737]

I too have the 50 1.2, 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 and have been considering getting the 135 1.8 rather than the 70-200 for wedding ceremony shots. Have you used it in a wedding situation?

[@PFB-yo6wi]

@@janiscollette1737 Sorry, Janis I haven't, sorry. But I have done multiple portrait work with the 135 1.8, and it's just flawless. Amazing lens - but I am guessing the 70-200 will be more versatile for a weeding situation. I have heard the new 70-200 is every bit as good as the 135 just the depth of field difference, but I got told, also, that at 200mm 2.4 the affect on the bekoh is every bit as good as the 135 at 1.8.....................so, I am going to be getting the 70-200 mkII

[@user-nu3yq3jr7m]

The video you took at 400 with the background blur just made me fall inlove with the 100-400 even tho i love a constant F2.8 lens

[@CGphotoOp]

I’m trying to decide on both lenses for landscapes

[@FACEDELIVRE]

Used both Owns the 70-200 f2.8 and glad I did Low light capability and 200 is plenty enough for what I use it for ! Nice video

[@SteveKershaw]

I have them both and selling the 70-200gm, it just doesn’t get used, the 100-400 is so versatile, landscapes, wildlife, it’s close focas ability means you can get semi macro, and as a portrait lens then the 85 does a better job, at weddings I used the 70-200 for candid images, being far enough away so they don’t “pose” for you, I don’t work pro any more but I recon the 100-400 would be better at this job, Great vid mate

[@JessShanahan]

As a motorsport and wildlife photographer, I’d go for that longer focal length. But I have a 100-400mm Canon L series which does the job fantastically. Great comparison!

[@DavidManningvlog]

Oh for motorsports, this lens is golden!!! I'm for sure leaning towards the 100-400😬

[@louisburley1597]

Currently debating the Tamron 70-180 2.8 and the Sigma 100-400 5.6-6.3 and this helped me also think the 100-400 is what I want for landscapes, but I can still do portraits with it.

[@kekevision1824]

So if I’m 80% video over photos would you recommend 100-400?? Love the vid!

[@arildhagen3820]

I think ther's more occasions where the 70-200 is the obvious tool. The 400 is more specialized and you need to use at at 400mm to achieve the effect that exites. If you can't have both, I'd go for the 70-200. You haven't touched the light issue either. The faster fixed aperture on the 70-200 will give you significantly lower ISO or higher shutter speed. Unless you are doing a wedding shoot on a well lit beach ISO is going to be an issue. Buy both already! :)

[@melaniechambers8946]

Loved the video on the 100 400, but I do love my 70 200 f2.8 for portraits, your baby girl is soooooo cute!

[@DavidManningvlog]

Thanks so much Melanie! She's pretty dang awesome 😊

[@owainsphotography397]

Superb upload!

[@jenninstitches]

I'd get 100-400 if it were my choice. I can see so many ways to use that because it gives you more wiggle room to play, and I think that as much as I love creamy its nice sometimes to have blur with the pops of sharpness in all the right places. Gives you a way at weddings to really disappear into the background and catch moments between guests they aren't even aware of. I've gotten some shots that even caught me in the throat when editing and seeing them back I don't know if I would have taken because I was far enough away that they were so candid with each other and no guard because I was not near them. I've had a lot of fun with 100-400 myself and I don't think you'll regret it.

[@DavidManningvlog]

That's an awesome perspective Jenn! I'm very much leaning towards the 100-400! I wish there were some weddings coming up that I could test this lens at. It's crazy that you can see something so far away and boom, catch the shot! I'll keep you updated👍

[@jenninstitches]

@@DavidManningvlog sorry for it being a big jumbled thoughts. Late in the evening where I am. I think you'll find weddings, outdoor events, concerts and stuff to be really a place where this shines for catching them while them not catching you. It adds an element to what you can give to a client. You'll probably find yourself doing a lot of awww at your own photos when you go back through and see what you caught for candid. Good luck choosing 😊

[@TheGSummit]

Did you end up buying either or are you waiting for an updated version?

[@nolandecreton3325]

100-400 would be my go to for wildlife and landscape haven’t done any wedding or something but it would be cool

[@DavidManningvlog]

It's a hell of a lens man! I wish there were some weddings right now to test this thing out at. Crazy times man!

[@nolandecreton3325]

@@DavidManningvlog yeah same I would love to do my first wedding I don’t own a Sony but still would be sick !!

[@jamesstarr7912]

How would the Tamron 15-150 2.0-2.8 hold up?

[@BrandonArvay]

Where’d you get the hoodie?

[@markstpierre]

My opinion right after you got gas (diesel?): I prefer my 70-200. After watching your complete video, no change. I still LOVE my 70-200. I will say I could sense your preference for the 100-400 right from the start. Get what excites you & you will use more.

[@DavidManningvlog]

That's what I'm thinking Mark! You've got to follow what excites you!

[@reynaldocasas8887]

I love both of them in order for me not to make mistakes i’m getting it both for my a1,a9ii,a7riv and a7iii i got 135 gm but i still need more range thanks for this video

[@jauntymiller]

I bought the 70-200 and 2x TC. I like the combo because I think it gives me greater versatility for a variety of applications. I love the bokeh at 2.8 for nature stuff. If I can get fairly close to the wildlife, I will shoot at 200. For smaller birds (kingfishers and the like) which will fly away if you're too close, 400 mm is not really enough. For those situations, I wish I had the 100-400 GM plus the 1.4 or 2x TC. But if you're after versatility, go for the 70-200. It does so many things well and the only real liability is the weakness on certain wildlife shots. That's my take. I love the 70-200GM

[@DavidManningvlog]

I think you're right John. As tempting as the 100-400 is, I think the 70-200 with 1.4x converter makes the most sense for me and my usage. But man, shooting at 400 is FUN!!!

[@jauntymiller]

@@DavidManningvlog yeah, it also seems like an excellent lens. I was blown away by how well the 70-200 performs though in general use cases. Portraits, landscapes, nature, sports-- this lens is a great all arounder. I think it helped me improve my photography overall, just from using it. I'm always tempted to carry it, even though it's so beefy. I also like how it zooms internally. Since it's already so long, I'm glad the lens barrel does not extend like the 100-400 GM does.

[@MMm-hz6hl]

Same here, I'm using Nikon but love watching your content..cheers mate

[@zenscape]

12:34 The background of 400mm f/5.6 looks so more buttery than 200mm f/2.8. Plus the background compression at 400mm is so dope! But you may need a walkie talkie to have a long range communication with your model. I have the 70-200 GM and love every bit of it but I got GAS attack after watching your video!

[@ClareGPhotos]

I think different uses. For filming your family on the beach, like in this example, I'd rather be up close than have to get further back and feeling like I'm stalking a family. If I was on the beach using the 100-400 I'd be using that for people in the water, birds, etc etc. Like you said, wildlife, nature, sports, etc etc. And use the 70-200 for more intimate moments but also having reach when you can't get that close, and then that's when the over lap comes. At weddings to get the perfect moment if you aren't close enough, but when you're with your family on the beach and you can get close, there's no reason to need a 100-400, in my opinion, it also just seems impractical to be that far away when you could be getting an better image, in my opinion, with a 70-200 70-200 can also be used to sports/wildlife/nature but you are assuming you can be/get somewhat close to them, which isn't always the case with unpredictable animals. But definitely overlap and definitely depends on the situation! :D

[@raretyrone624]

70-200 would be the way unless I was doing some wildlife shoots. Also, what type of computer do you use to do all of your photo and video editing? Do you regularly purge your harddrives and keep only the main footage that you want or do you find yourself constantly getting more external storage space?

[@DavidManningvlog]

I've got a solid video coming up on storage and workflow that I think you'll like! Keep an eye on the channel this next month and it should drop in here at some point!

[@chrisdebono1289]

Is there a video on this question?

[@AdventureMuse]

I ordered it last week and of course torture myself to make sure I made a good decision. Arrives in a few days!! Can't wait to play.

[@whoeverwhoever400]

What about night scene comparisons? I don’t find any reviewer test those lens at night photography.

[@andyaldworth7807]

For what you were looking for the 135GM would be perfect. Best lens I’ve ever used on any system. On the A7RIV it provides crop ability equivalent to almost 200mm with a 24mp camera.

[@culemanndubai]

Amen! 👍🏻

[@gianniness]

I was actually thinking the same. The 135mm f1.8 is such an amazing lens. The only drawbacks are the price and the size. :)

[@BrandonTalbot]

Just bought the 100-400 from Fuji. Excited to use it for the firefall this weekend!another great vid homie

[@DavidManningvlog]

Dude, that's such a solid lens man!

[@BrandonTalbot]

@@DavidManningvlog yeah I’m excited to use to use it on these adventures!

[@travelwithjustin]

Great comparison! Subbed

[@Snapkyoto]

hey i got that exact same jacket (bought in japan), but my mistake i bought the women;s version or the zip closes in the opposite.

[@FrankTsang]

100-400 is versatile in any good lighting scenario. 70-200 is life-saving in dim venue. although you can setup strobes if you needed. I'm using Canon.

[@stevejustice9686]

You're right, that one can produce the same background blurry at 400 5.6. However, the angle of view is different. So the comparison is not 100% accurate, at 400 it's a quiet narrow view already. But both are surprisingly close and it's a matter of taste at the end. But a great video overall, thanks for sharing!

[@Clemme]

Great comparison man! I want a tele for my documentary filmmaking setup. I use the FX3 with 24mm 1.4 GM, Sony 24-70 2.8 GM and Sigma Art 85 1.4. I can't really decide if the 70-200 or 100-400 is the best option for me. I like your point with the unique look of shooting at 400mm. Atm I'm leaning towards the 100-400. 90% of my shooting in on the 24-70 but I like the idea that if I wanna go tele I can go REAL tele with the 100-400. The FX3 handles noise very well so I don't think the higher f-stops will be a problem when shooting indoor. I have other fast lenses if it's a super low situation. Cheers bro

[@DavidManningvlog]

I think if you're primarily focused on video, then the 100-400 is the best option. You would only have a small gap in focal range between 85 and 100, and the f4 will give you plenty of bokeh at longer focal ranges. The reach of 400 is just so good!

[@Clemme]

@@DavidManningvlog Cool. Is the 100-400 fast enough to produce well exposed indoor slog3 material? It's not a dark environment but more of and office lightning.

[@Clemme]

@@DavidManningvlog I just ordered one. The FX3 handles ISO at 12800 very well, so I don't think I will miss the f2.8

[@danasuechilds]

Having shot a wedding before...and portraits, macro and landscape...I did not have a 70-200 2.8 and always wished that I had one (especially for that wedding) and I think if you don't have it and when you go back to shooting weddings, you'll probably notice more those gaps and want it. The 100-400 also serves a purpose as well, but in different ways and I'm not sure if you thought of or tested? What about macro/close-ups of detail items such as rings, wedding invitation or other items where you may need to backup a bit to get all the items, but then zoom in with the capability of the 100-400? And landscape situations (although wide angle is still the best for this, I love my 11-16 Tokina for my Canon)...by getting shots of the wedding location and reception situational shots from afar without being disruptive to the wedding goers. You can't go wrong with either and is there any reason that you can't get both? Perhaps start with the 100-400 now and as wedding business picks up again and youtube/merch business dollars roll in, you can splurge for the 70-200/2.8?

[@DavidManningvlog]

I like where your head is at Dana! BOTH seems to always be the better answer!🤣

[@danasuechilds]

@@DavidManningvlog Yes, I'm having a hard time convincing my husband why I need two cameras...

[@PaulTakesPhotos]

Big fan of your channel. That comparing the 70-200 and 100-400 is kinda comparing an apple with an orange. Yes the additional reach makes a difference. I normally use the 70-200 for events, landscape, near focus birding (the lens is fantastically sharp) the 100-400 with an extender makes an interesting value proposition, but I still feel that the 100-400 is still better suited for your typical outdoor, wildlife. I rented this lens for a week and was impressed with its quality but overall for birding and wildlife I chose my 200-600mm. If the 100-400 would be a bit cheaper I might consider adding it to the arsenal.

[@DavidManningvlog]

Oh man, yeah for birding, the 200-600 is a beast! And while I totally agree that I think the assumption is that the 70-200 and 100-400 are like an apple and an orange, you can get really similar results of the 70-200 with the 100-400 AND you get the ability to have that extra reach. It's a tough choice right now!

[@PaulTakesPhotos]

@@DavidManningvlog price wise the 70-200 Vs.100-400 is a big difference. I think the 200-600 sits perfectly in the middle price range wise. But you are right, it also depends where you use the lens most for. Just returned the 150-600mm c sigma for Sony. It was so disappointing so now purely into native Sony telezoom lenses

[@DavidManningvlog]

@@PaulTakesPhotos Yeah, I've pretty much stuck to Sony lenses because of a few disappointments. Good to try, but always end up back with Sony!

[@alexandrebraulio3938]

Thank you guy and Hello from France🤟

[@themanunleashed]

3:15 I've used a 55-210mm zoom lens, and I honestly want that extra reach mainly for wildlife. But I did find I wanted more reach while shooting events like cycling and soccer.

[@dicekolev5360]

Hi David! I'm not making much comments here, actually this might be the first one. I usually go to your vlogs when it comes to GoPro/action cams. I'm not even Sony shooter but trying to decide between the two focal lenghts for the Nikon Z as 100-400mm is just released so now I'm 100mm... umm 100% sure I want the excitement as that's what I usually feel when being outside no matter the photography style. Thank you ^_^ Sonikony unites! lol :D

[@baileyconway6890]

I think the 70-200 is better for weddings because of the low light also like you said you could get a converter there different tools for a different job

[@DavidManningvlog]

For sure the 2.8 is much better in low light! The only time I'm needing range and low light though is darker churches. But you're right that the 70-200 with teleconverter might be the right move! Man... such a tough decision😬

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

I have both of them in their Canon equivalent. They are for different purposes. You could supplement the 70-200 with 1.4 and 2x extenders if you just wanted one lens. But the 400 can also be used as a near macro, wildlife, and isolate landscape features. if you have already lenses for portrait like your 85 then I see little point in the 70-200.

[@DavidManningvlog]

That's what I'm thinking Dimitris, but for sure the times at weddings when I need the extra reach and I'm in a low light scenario, the 70-200 would be the better choice. Maybe I'll just go your route and buy them both!

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

@@DavidManningvlog sure whatever helps you, just be aware that the 70-200 f/2.8 would be much slower than your 85 :-))

[@Fessoid]

new 70-200 GM2 comes

[@noahjames5536]

Can you please make a video on how to edit in the GoPro app. It’s confusing

[@DavidManningvlog]

I'm not a huge fan of editing in the GoPro app. Have you checked out Premiere Rush yet? I really like that program for quick on the go edits!

[@noahjames5536]

@@DavidManningvlog Okay, that’s fine. I just think it would be helpful for beginners (like me) with the GoPro app. Anyways, keep on the good work with your channel David! Your videos are great.

[@GiacomoZonco]

Thinking about the same thing.. but in RF! 70-200 (2.8, compact!!) or 100-500 (longer reach considering I only have 20mp, super compression) I do a lot of travel and landscape, with some portraits here and there. So on one side 100-500 is very exticing, but having more space and less weight in the bag and having a lens that serves better for potential paid work is also cool. ARGH!

[@DavidManningvlog]

I'm voting the 70-200 2.8 lens. I'll explain more in an upcoming video👍

[@GiacomoZonco]

@@DavidManningvlog will be waiting for it, please let me know when it’s out!

[@evanbrorby]

honestly, you seriously can't go wrong with either! they both are seriously beautiful lenses! But yes I totally agree 70-200 probably better for portraits :)

[@Aroland217]

Just getting in a van with a skateboard not forgetting my camera outside

[@DavidManningvlog]

DAMN IT! That's where that camera went!!!🤣

[@Aroland217]

@@DavidManningvlog hahahaha

[@manu-singh]

ROFL

[@Visualdaydream]

I have the 70-200 right now and am starting to think I made the wrong choice after attempting to shoot some bald eagles and realizing it doesn’t have a ton of use in my bag. I got it for indoor equine events and weddings but I think I may trade it for the 100-400

[@lukevanginkel7380]

I always watch your videos on my phone, watching on my families 4k tv is a big difference

[@Keilikeramen]

I have 85 f1.8 but I want to get more reach for landscape and outdoor sport I still can't decide 70-180 f2.8 tamron or sigma 100-400 f5.6 Thank you for your review finally I decide to get 100-400mm if I want to use for portrait I still have 85f1.8 and will upgrade to 135 f1.8 samyang

[@Admin-xv6us]

what kind of camera you were using in gas station?

[@DavidManningvlog]

A7Siii👍

[@Martincyborg]

70-200 + 200-600 is the way to go. We love and use them both often in our video work.

[@DavidManningvlog]

Ohhhhhh... THAT would be an incredible setup! The 200-600 is bananas!

[@Martincyborg]

@@DavidManningvlog Yes the 200-600 totally blew our minds! We did not expect it to be that good, but they way it performs it is darn close to earn a GM badge.

[@mountains_and_moors]

@@Martincyborg - Dude, you have me challenge my decision to buy the 100-400 GM now! I don’t need the 2.8 aperture and could buy to 70-200 f4 G and the 200-600 G for a little more money 💰 ooohhhhh 😯😮 But the weight 🤔🤔🤔

[@DavidManningvlog]

@@Martincyborg That's what I've heard about that lens! I mean, to be fair any Sony lens these days is damn good and there's very little difference between the best and the best best lenses. They're all pretty dang good now!

[@yohannsphotographyvideogra9542]

Agreed nothing beats the 85mm for portrait

[@teamsaunz]

I really need to stop watching your videos at midnight. When you spew out all these numbers, my brain goes KA-BOOM!

[@DavidManningvlog]

Hahhaaaa! It can for sure happen! Just get those smelling salts to wake you back up👍

[@teamsaunz]

@@DavidManningvlog I totally burst into laughter when I read your comment. I work with kids and they all just kind of stared at me.

[@Vissenbijdewaterkant]

Nice video! What a price...love the USA! In the Netherlands cost not 77 but 153 dollar and more :-( !

[@edub9930]

One good thing about the lenses, if you dont have much use for them you can use them as a thermos 😀

[@RobSambles]

They're definitely comparable but if you need low light performance (which you so often do with weddings) then that 2.8 might make a difference

[@DavidManningvlog]

Damn it Rob! Why doesn't Sony make a 16-400mm f/2 lens?!

[@RobSambles]

@@DavidManningvlog Haha - can you imagine!? 400mm diameter!

[@DavidManningvlog]

@@RobSambles I'd give em $15K for it!

[@jayphoenixBahamas]

I'm getting the 100-400 for my wedding ceremony shots - just wanna be out of the way but still be able to capture some great shots

[@DavidManningvlog]

I think you'll be really stoked on it for that! The 70-200 has been my wedding ceremony lens throughout my career, but after shooting this one, I think it would be amazing!

[@veselinvasilev9362]

Thanks!

[@jpcoutu1]

Simplest way to put it: 1. Buy the 70-200 gen ii 2. Buy a 1.4x tc 3. Buy a 200-600 if u need more reach All problems solved

[@saulromero3748]

Im switching from canon to Sony and been debating this though I’m in the same boat where although I love the 70-200 but the 100-400 is slightly more exciting. I’m also a landscape photographer by hobby and wedding videographer/ photographer by trade.

[@alexanderdowney1964]

Sick video, thanks for making it! I just picked up the 100-400 GM a few days ago (as opposed to the "Holy Trinity"), I got it for wildlife, and just to have some more reach. I've got to say that I've been pleasantly surprised at the compression when really punching in. It's also got sick stableazation, I was tracking jets landing (handheld on an A7siii, once it locks in the AF it's super easy to track. Truth is... I'll just end up getting both. 🎥

[@LtDeadeye]

I’m strongly considering a 100-400 GM, possibly with a 1.4 tc as a walk around fun lens. My 135 f/1.8 and 300 f/2.8 both take care of my creamy bokeh cravings.

[@billimono4480]

you may forget to mention how hard the 100-400 is when used as a video lens, and the weight difference, especially compared to the 70-200 gen ii

[@DavidManningvlog]

Anything at that length is going to be tricky as a video lens, but the gen 2 70-200 wasn't out yet when this video was made. For sure makes the choice easier now!

[@stretchgoham]

I’m here because I’ve been eyeing the 135mm G master and now I’m wondering should I get a zoom instead. I’m running a 24mm and 85mm and will pick up the 50mm G master once announced. Still so undecided between the 135mm or one of these zooms 😭

[@jean-micheldrolet1128]

I own the 135 mm. Best lens I’ve used in terms of autofocus, bokeh an sharpness. If you want to take different portrait than everyone else, it is the best pick (different than a 85 mm, and better bokeh than a 70-200). However, it is quite limiting. For landscape the 100-400 is the better choice. The 135 mm replaces a 70-200 for me...I use the 24-70 mm GM for normal shots. Low light I use the 24 GM. The best is having the 135 mm + 100-400 😂. I want that 50 1.2 GM too !!! Cheers!

[@stretchgoham]

@@jean-micheldrolet1128 yea I’m currently running the 24GM and the Sigma 85 1.4 Dg Dn . The 50 will definitely be ordered lol. I’m thinking either the 100-400 or get the 135 and then a 200-600

[@jean-micheldrolet1128]

@@stretchgoham for me the 200-600 is just too big to carry around. The 100-400 seems to be a good compromised of size and performance. You can't go wrong with the 135. You will find yourself zooming on photos and you won't believe how perfect the colors and the image is. Probably the best lens in the line up (maybe the 12,000$ 400 mm f2.8 is better but I will never know 😂).

[@TIBISCOBIOLABAND]

135 GM it's amazing, but has one big down side. The lack of oss! If you want to use it on apsc camera and you don't have de a6600, then it's a bad investment. 70-200 GM or 100-400 GM are versatile lenses because of oss and the zoom range. Hope it helped

[@mlegrand]

Super cute family. Maybe the big difference would be low light issues. I'd like to take pictures of a few of these damn owls in my backyard but f/5.6 . . . 🤷‍♂️

[@DavidManningvlog]

Yeah, that's the trade off. Longer lens, but smaller aperture😬

[@defcry_again]

I had such a dilemma but I think I will go for 100-400. Thanks for making my mind set.

[@vladimirivanov6353]

f2.8 vs f5.6 the battle is done!!!

[@JosephWilsonProductions]

I have to say after watching the video, The 400mm is a very distinct look. I actually prefer it. The 70-200mm looks great, but just like all the rest... Right?

[@DavidManningvlog]

That's sort of my thought with it! It's sooooo unique and when you see it on a big screen, there's just something that is really eye catching. I'm always looking for that edge to grab someone's attention and this lens just might be it!

[@themanunleashed]

15:30 if I were a wedding photographer, I would get the 70-200. But for me doing different events such as sports, random local events, and wildlife, I'd definitely get the 100-400. If I had the budget, go for the 400 or 600 prime lol, but not willing to spend over $10k for a lens yet.

[@AntonioAlves-qr7mw]

Dude... it goes back to what you really need. You were excited about the 100-400 because you had it to test, it would be the same if you had 2 or 3 other lens to test. Go with the 70-200 because that is what you needed to start with.

[@DavidManningvlog]

Damn you with your logic Antonio!🤣

[@travissmarion]

I'm going to be getting the Sony 70-200mm F2.8 GM II and pair it with the Sony 2x teleconverter. Best of both worlds IMO.

[@FowlersFreeTime]

I wonder what that 100-400 would do for my A6400? I'd probably be able to see crater details on the moon lol!

[@DavidManningvlog]

Dude, yes! That's about what it's like to shoot the 100-400 with 1.4x adapter! Crazy range!

[@edsmileytube]

Yikes, $3.89 a gallon for diesel. Thought PA was bad! I have the Canon versions and use the 70-200 for people shooting and 100-400 for wildlife (mostly birds). Will be interested in hearing the rest of the video and what you think.

[@edsmileytube]

Interesting take on the 100-400. I see you point about having to be far away from the subject you are photographing. Maybe time to take it out to see how it performs with photographing people. Thanks for the video! PS: Get more maroon hoodies!

[@DavidManningvlog]

@@edsmileytube You rock man! More maroon hoodies on the way!

[@milkshake-studio]

On the shot of your daughter and wife at 400, what is the distance between you and them ? It's just before choosing, so we can have an idea of the zoom power

[@longboardluv2]

good video david

[@DavidManningvlog]

Thanks Matt!👊

[@chrisward6388]

Should I get the hero 9 or wait for the hero 10?

[@monicachandler4655]

10

[@patrickhundley1203]

I would say the 70-200 is for portraits and the 100-400 is for wildlife photography, maybe shots of the moon and stuff like that too

[@DavidManningvlog]

Totally agree Patrick! That's how I've always thought of them as well, but super interesting to shoot some portrait shots with the 100-400 and see how it looks!

[@NORMANI7]

I HAVE THE 100-400 LENS AND LOVE IT , ITS A BEAST

[@DavidManningvlog]

Absolute beast Norman!

[@NORMANI7]

@@DavidManningvlog i also have the 70-200 but dont use it after i got the 100-400

[@DavidManningvlog]

@@NORMANI7 That's actually really good to hear!

[@TheOneMonk]

I would not go for this 70-200 as there are rumours of a new version. As stated by others what you actually want here is the 135mm 1.8. And then the 100-400 makes even more sense as you have something to cover up to 400. Or even up to 600 in APSC mode. At 600 the A1 still does 21 megapixeels in APSC mode, the A7RIV even 27 megapixels.