Which Zoom Lens is BEST for Wildlife? Sony 200-600 vs Canon 100-500

[@BrendanHarington]

Awesome video and great comparison. I shoot with a Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 and it is significantly sharper than the Tamron 150-600 G2 you mentioned.

[@TheMavExpedition]

Great video. Hope to get the 100-500 to pair it with the R5. Thank you for the insight 👍🏾

[@michaelbuechner]

Thank you- 🙏 good overview 😊

[@mcuellarable]

Thanks very good explanation 😊

[@SumeetMoghe]

Great comparison Villiers! But I don't think most people are making isolated Sony vs Canon lens comparisons, if they're already on one of those systems. In that case you choose what the system offers you - as you mention right at the end. So your video is useful for those making system to system comparisons. In such cases, it's an incomplete assessment to just compare lenses. You have to compare the entire system. Once you go there, you have to compare similar bodies. For example, the A7R5 has lots of pixels, but it's too slow for wildlife shooters in 2024, when you consider the frame rate and buffer. It's also $1900 more expensive than the R6 ii. The comparison fails right there. You see what I mean? All this said, I love the example images you showed. Great stuff. My mates and I love your vids. Keep creating!

[@TheSafariExpert]

Valid point, Sumeet. The idea originated from newbies to wildlife photography asking me what system to go for, Canon, Nikon or Sony. In that case, I always start with the lens as opposed to the camera body, and in this instance, these two lenses are the two best options for people looking to invest in their first set of decent wildlife photography gear. On top of that, there are also people who think the grass is greener on the other side and consider actually selling their gear to switch simply because they think the one lens is better than the other. I know this for a fact, because I was wondering about it... So hopefully it will help some people to make those decisions. Glad you enjoy the videos, thanks for commenting and happy photography!

[@riaanlouw3956]

I was thinking exactly the same thing, I am not going to sell my Sony because of one lens, I would have loved to see a comparison of lenses that fit on the same system, rather than two completely different systems.

[@TheSafariExpert]

@@riaanlouw3956, see my answer above 👆🏻🙂

[@jakecook716]

I think the 100-500 has to have the slight edge in zoom range. A 100mm difference makes a more significant difference on the wide end then it does on the long end. The photograph isn't a total loss if you're slightly not close enough, but it can be if you're too close that you can't zoom out any further

[@BrendanHarington]

That’s very true. I’m on a crop sensor body with a 200-500mm Nikon and find myself constantly changing lenses to a 70-200mm to get the wider angle shots.

[@TheSafariExpert]

@@jakecook716, that’s very true! The extra 100mm on the long end only really makes a difference if you’re shooting with a small sensored camera like an R6.

[@JWS-66]

nice comparison, the min focus and the weight on the Sony 200-600 is the reason I am looking for a Sony 100-400 GM...maybe a Tamron 50-400 only because of the price difference, but my preference is a native lens, a great plus of the 200-600 is the internal zoom...what the others don't have. thanks

[@h.o.j2375]

Both are amazing lenses but I’m glad I went with canon system. I realise on any other system I would never consider one of these telephoto zooms due to size and weight. I own the budget RF 100-400mm, there’s no way I would have bought one if it wasn’t for size and weight. I use it for landscape and street photography in the afternoon, it’s absolutely perfect for it.

[@drstavroseleftheriou1722]

I agree with others - Nikon z 180-600 is missing from the comparison. I do understand that you did not have access to it but i suppose that you could use a rental and make a more balanced video and show the pros and cons of the 3 most popular systems. The truth is that Nikon has the best lens lineup for wildlife, thus it feels “unfair” that it was left out.

[@summonedfist]

The Nikon has been out for barely a year -- there won't be as long of term reviews esp if people are shopping used market. In Canada the canon is crazy overpriced for what it is at msrp

[@458Avinash]

Once Nikon gets their AF right, they're going to be the best option overall. Canon is now mostly aiming for Super Pro gear and not Amateur/Enthusiast gear. 24-105 F2.8, 100-300 f2.8. The only lens system with no breaks from 24-300 F2.8 with 2 bodies. Sony with their 3rd party support and excellent AF offers the best value.

[@drstavroseleftheriou1722]

⁠@@458Avinashthere are some very serious professional photographers out there who use Nikon and are very happy with the AF. In any case, this video is for lenses and not AF.

[@drstavroseleftheriou1722]

@@summonedfistis the fact that the Nikon lens is relatively new a good enough reason to exclude form the comparison? I guess not

[@458Avinash]

@@drstavroseleftheriou1722 I was not saying Nikon isn't good enough. I was just saying that AF is the only thing they need to improve to make it the best option overall. Lens - they already have the best line up quality wise , even though not on quantity. Modern Cameras and lenses are so good now that all systems have excellent options and it's mostly a cost / convenience - preference now.

[@ScrimshawPhotography]

The thing that made me stop using my 200-600 is that when you have a long zoom lens with an F6.3 aperture, the best way to get that smooth buttery bokeh is to zoom all the way out to 600mm. It was pressuring me into bad habits of always shooting at 600, which just wasn't lending itself to good photography for me. Granted now I switched to a 400mm prime lens, but it goes to show that longer isn't always better. A 100-400 would be a much better lens in my opinion for those looking at zooms.

[@stevenwaldstein2249]

I have both lens but i own a Sony A1 so i favor that setup. May now consider a Canon R5 II. Also, you didn’t mention anything about teleconverters in your comparison and packed size for travel flexibility. Still like your video and a good comparison. Thank you and take care.

[@douglasstemke2444]

Moving from Pentax and as a traveler I did a comparison of the lenses in question and Nikon lenses as well. FOR ME, compactness is the primary feature. The Canon 100-500, 85mm 2X Laowa macro, 16mm Canon lens and 50mm Canon lens plus 1.4 TC plus R5 all fit in my Lowpro shoulder bag designed for a standard 80-20mm f2.8 with lens. I pop it into my carry on backpack for flights and I'm good to go. I really don't think any other mirrorless system can match that level of portability.

[@andremeyer7491]

Great video thanks for the comparison especially now that I have to think about RF lenses. Although I am sure there are so many options but what about the Sigma 60-600? This beats the canons 100mm and equal to the Sony 600mm at a serious cost difference

[@TheSafariExpert]

@@andremeyer7491, I doubt very much that it will be as sharp as these two lenses.

[@andremeyer7491]

I have to say that I get great video sharpness on it with my R6 but in photos these might outrank it

[@barryhugo3365]

It would have been good also include the Canon 200-800

[@TheSafariExpert]

@@barryhugo3365, would have been nice, but sadly I didn’t have access to one for this review.

[@barryhugo3365]

@@TheSafariExpert they do seem to be more readily available. I got mine in January, but I have had 2 calls from suppliers in the last week saying that they had stock. I am very happy with the lens

[@TheSafariExpert]

@@barryhugo3365, that’s awesome.

[@michaelfleetwood620]

Villiers, I think there needs to be a lens that does everything lol. Covers a good enough distance, a great aperture range, reasonable price-wise, and easy to transport.

[@TheSafariExpert]

@@michaelfleetwood620 😅👏🏻

[@limbei996]

After getting the RF200800 I have no desire to get any other wildlife lens anymore. Its way too versatile. I can shoot anything from big mammals to small tiny birds without any issue. Denoise softwares has never failed me when i need to shoot up to iso 12800.

[@Condor070]

All great and expensive lenses, but how do the cheaper Tamron 150-600 and Sigma 60-600 compare?

[@TheSafariExpert]

@@Condor070, sadly, both of those lenses are substantially softer that these two 😔

[@Jonathantuba]

I think the Sony 100-400 GM is a nearer comparison to the Canon

[@TheSafariExpert]

Hmmm, that’s debatable 🤔🙂

[@markrigg6623]

​@@TheSafariExpert It's not debatable. He's right.

[@TheSafariExpert]

@@markrigg6623, how is a lens with a zoom range that’s 100mm less more comparible than one with the same zoom range? 🤔😏

[@markrigg6623]

@TheSafariExpert Because the 100 - 400 has image quality and a price range more directly in line with the Sony. Comparing to a Canon lens like they are all the same system ?. The Sony 200- 600 just isn't in the same league optically, which is reflected in its price. So I own all these lenses, and if people think the 200 -600 is closer in performance to the other lenses they are going to be a tad dissapointed! . But there's also more similarities in the physical construction of the 100 -400 with the Canon as well. ( Zoom extension, overall size and weight). I do find it odd your choice of lense comparison being between 2 brands. But I just want to say that in my actual shooting I've not found the 200- 600 to be nowhere near sharp enough to compete with my 100-400. I can crop and still get a better image with the Gmaster. So that's how I compare it to the longer lense. I crop to the same field of view. The Gmaster is so insanely sharp, comparable to my 600 f4 , it just runs rings around the 200-600.

[@ericmcleod7825]

If you are going to shoot a safari with only 1 body and lens then the RF100-500 is the best option because as you said it goes to 100 and is hand-holdable all day. Same is true if you are working from a crowded vehicle. If you are shooting with 2 bodies AND you have the room and a way to stabilize a heavier lens then either something like the 200-600 or an exotic could be the way to go. My experience is that most open vehicles don't have a great way to stabilize a heavy lens and in full-bodied vehicles it is often only practical to shoot a large lens from the pop-top which often creates cluttered backgrounds.

[@neostephens8980]

Well, umm, isn't that going to depend on the ecosystem you're in? I mean, even if the Canon or Sony or Nikon lens is better, it won't matter if you have the other brand. Just get the best lens for the ecosystem you're in. Unless of course you have the means to shoot multiple brands.

[@TheSafariExpert]

@@neostephens8980, very true, BUT, there are people who buy a long range zoom lens as part of their first kit, AND anyone watching because they’re considering getting either of these lenses still got the pros and cons of each.

[@neostephens8980]

@@TheSafariExpert Good point!

[@lareviewdelvago7983]

If you had taken focusing speed into account, the rf 100-500 would have gotten another point and would have been tied with the Sony. Otherwise everything is ok.

[@irbis8801]

Sometimes you should try Nikon pf lenses.

[@TheSafariExpert]

@@irbis8801, good idea!

[@irbis8801]

@@TheSafariExpert More than 10 years I am using Canon camera and lens. But last year I bought z8 and 800 mm pf . And now I love and use both systems.

[@noreaction1]

Who buys a Sony lens when they have a canon camera? Who buys a canon lens when they have a Sony camera?

[@TheSafariExpert]

Who wonders which brand to buy if they want to get serious about wildlife photography? Why does everyone assume only people who already have mirrorless gear watch this video? 😂

[@Mr09260]

Why Not Mention/Compare/Test the best of the lot Nikon Z 180-600 which is the same as Sony apart from the Nikon has a better short end (Ideal for Landscape Wild Life Environment Shooting >> >> , Cheaper than the 100-500 , Doesnt Telescope , etc etc and is brilliant on Camera of the Year Nikon Z8 . I am 74 and hand hold the 180-600 all day >. and it would be harder to to handhold the 100-500 with its unbalanced telescoping effect in hand and on a Gimbal >> the 180-600 is wider than the Sony. The RF 100-500 is also Darker at F7.1 than the Longer internal F6.3 200-600 Sony and Nikon 180-600 f6.3 and its a Nikon Z Lens which means its Sharp > In fact my 180-600 is sharper than my old F Mount Nikon 500 f4 VR Prime. Not too mention the 180-600 has the shortest Zoom throw out there

[@TheSafariExpert]

In this case the answer is as simple as: I didn't have access to the Nikon 160-600mm lens. But you're right, that would be a great comparison!

[@bladerealm124]

I own both lenses as well as the 200-800mm and I can assure you the 100-500mm is FAR lighter than the 180-600mm, even when extended. It is a joy to use and one of my favorite lenses in the system. I like the 180-600mm too and loved my previous Sony 200-600mm. The throw on both of those is much nicer but the MFD and range of the 100-500mm makes it super versatile. Its size makes it easier to travel with. The biggest downside is its wonky teleconverter compatibility. With the 1.4x the zoom range is limited to 420-700mm f10 and it must be extended to 300mm (420mm equivalent) just to attach the TC. Overall in terms of handling the 100-500mm is the best, the 180-600mm is noticeably heavier but the internal zoom and full TC compatibility is nice, and the 200-800mm is the worst due to its ridiculously long throw, extending barrel, and non-removable tripod foot. Nikon's stabilization is also the best of the bunch. If the Z8II exceeds the performance of the R5II I'll likely pick one up and consider selling my Canon gear, mainly for the better stabilization for handheld video and better 4k60 quality (not line skipped).

[@hari_fyi]

I've used both Sony 200-600 and Nikon 180-600. Sony has less rotation to reach 600, weight is centered so it doesn't feel heavy, internal rotation. Nikon had better build quality in my perspective

[@markrigg6623]

It's not hard to hold the 100-500, believe me.

[@baekmedier]

If you go out an buy a lens for only one safari of one trip en general.. .you got to much money :P hahaha If its onlty for a week then just rent the lens for the trip or the assignment. I own the RF 100-500 and its awesome and "small". but but but... remember it changes the F stop.. its isa more easy to use it by setting it on F7.1 and just use it like that.

[@dan.newtons]

Not really sure on the value of this video, people either are Sony or canon shooters. If you had done Sony to tamron or sigma lens but different bodies, maybe better doing a review of each in separate videos but they are both older lenses now

[@TheSafariExpert]

@@dan.newtons, anyone looking to get either of these lenses now have the pros and cons of each. Good value if you ask me 😏

[@dan.newtons]

@@TheSafariExpert I can vouch for the 200-600, managed to win a few awards with it before getting the 400mm

[@mbismbismb]

I'd love to use the canon one... lighter to pack, dont care if its plasticky, i dont impress animals with my lens 😏

[@soumakbinduwildlife]

Sony 200-600 and Nikon 180-600 are better than canon

[@Peaceofwildlifetx]

Nikon enters chat: *sad potato*

[@ricardodurand422]

Can you also do the Sony 100-400mm, please and thank you.

[@robertfurness1999]

Great review, but you are mixing working distance with minimum focusing distance. Min focusing distance is measured from the sensor plane while the working distance is measured from the end of the lens hood

[@TheSafariExpert]

@@robertfurness1999, there I have just learnt something new 😮 Am I right in saying that, in principle, the head-to-head comparison doesn’t really change, though? The Canon still allows you to gain focus a lot closer to your subject than the Sony does, even if the MFD is off by a few cm.

[@Pentalvers]

Hi I love watching your videos, I’ve got the 100mm-500mm lens. I’ve changed the depth of field but to the crop button. It’s very useful 👍🏾

[@TheSafariExpert]

It's a great lens! :)

[@jakesdewet3567]

Great Video, for me the deal breaker on these lenses are the f stop, f7.1 and f6.3 there is always a trade off. Zooms give flexibility and more compact but I also think that people have become obsessed with reach. The trade off on f7.1 and f6.3 is light as well as DOF, but DOF can also be a positive as often we stop down the f4 or f2.8 primes to f8 or more, but nothing can replace the f2.4 or f4 light gathering, focus speed and compression. The new Mirrorless primes are very expensive but we can still use previous generation primes on the new bodies, talking Canon and Nikon. The reason the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 is such a popular wildlife lens. Nikon had a winner with the 80-400 but now it is also a 100-400. So in my ideal world, I shoot a prime like the Nikon 400 f4.5 and a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4 extender for the prime taking it to 560 f6.3 if needed. But individual choice based on needs is key. To me the Canon 100-500 is just very expensive.

[@rga66]

I personally use the Tamron 50-400mm on one body and the 200-600mm on an APSC, so I have at all time from 50mm f/4.5 to 900mm f/6.3 and at least 26mp ! With the stabilisation of the lens plus the IBIS I rarely miss a shot and can go very close to my subject if I need... Something like the subject right at a few cm of the front glass actually !