I'm a photographer who never did any bird photography or animals, I simply don't have the money to spend on such big lenses: I absolutely love watching your videos. I don't think I'll ever get into bird photography but it's such a joy to watch your passion and you seem like such a nice guy. Really fantastic channel and fantastic pictures. I wish there were more youtubers like this and less of the "I'm so cool and witty and let me manipulate you to buy these garbage products" kind of youtubers. Just honest people showing what they are passionate about. Bravo.

Haha, up until 2:58 i thought "definetly the 200-600 for me". And THEN... :-)

"we pay people in maple syrup"...priceless!

Most important difference so many forget to mention in reviews is the fact that the 100400GM has DUAL linear AF motors. The 200600G has a single motor to move all those elements. This is why the 100400GM is faster to focus on moving subjects,  with more precision

What an honest , revelant and informed evaluation . Great voice , pace and humour. Well done young Stefano.

Another advantage of the 200-600mm over the 100-400mm is that the barrel doesn't extend. The balance on my hand or the tripod doesn't change when zooming. Besides it's less likely to get dirt on the elements when the barrel is fixed.

Great review and thanks for posting. Loved your photographs. You certainly helped to cement my decision and I'm heading for the 100-400. The portability and the close range ability were the deciders for me. I often cart the camera along on my dog walks and take my chances with the wildlife but I like the sound of being able to capture the flora and occasional fungi. The 200-600 is just not portable enough for my typical situation.

I used the 200-600 for a college football game in the US. Rented it. Glad I did. It was too heavy for me.  I shoot with the a9. I think I’ll give the 100-400 a shot. It is lighter and easier to hand hold, isn’t it?

There's some wonderful pictures here, thank you for sharing them & your opinions.

I watched this video earlier this year when I was trying to decide which of these 2 lenses to buy. I finally decided on the 200-600 with a 2x converter in order to shoot an annular eclipse that occurred here a few months ago. Recently, I've been re-watching reviews to learn a little more about the 200-600 and to get some ideas for other uses of the lens outside of nature/bird photography. I live in a very urban area and my only mode of transportation is a scooter. Anyway, you said you were in low light most of the time because you were in the jungle. The a7III, the camera I use, has a great reputation in low light. I find that my a7III when paired the 200-600 is great when I'm in the jungles/forests here in Taiwan, or when night shooting the people on the street below my apartment. I don't have the 100-400, but your comments have made me rethink my reasons for not considering it as part of my arsenal. I have always loved super-zoom "macro" photography. Back in my film days, I used a 70-300 with a 2x converter with my Minolta 7000i to do "macro" photography of insects, spiders and humming birds. I needed a lot of light, back then, because I always shot with either ISO 100 or 400 film. I appreciated your review of both lenses and why it could be possible to own both of them because of their unique shooting qualities, compared one to the other, that don't overlap. I have all the G zoom lenses from the 12-24 thru the 200-600 and have recently been saving up to replace them the their GM counterparts, well, maybe not the $3000 12-24 GM lens. I haven't been considering ever buying the 100-400 GM, until now. Thanks for your review.

Hey Everyone, hope you enjoyed the video, there’s a couple things I’d like to add/mention:
1. I’ve recently updated to Adobe Premiere 2020 and it took me 3 days of constantly trying to export this video to get a final version without glitches. So if you notice anything weird in the video, let me know! I’m working on getting a new laptop. So, bear with me for a bit haha.
2.  One thing I forgot to mention: I think the 100-400 is more consistent at getting critically sharp results. For general uses (social media, small prints) it’s not a huge difference, but if you’re someone who likes to pixel peep and create very large prints, I think the quality and critical sharpness of the 100-400 is what you’ll be after.

Glad you came to my little country, I'm beginning my birdwatching foray and your videos have been an amazing insight for me, thanks a lot man....

100-400 can be used in general purpose cases also like urban landscapes, etc. 200-600 has a very specific role.

This is one of the most thorough reviews on both lenses that I've seen. Thank you for this!

Thanks for this! You hit some really good points that aren't part of everything lens review

Your  enthusiasm is contagious.

just watched one video of yours yesterday and i subscribed... informative , to the point n with example...geat content...thank you...

Very helpful review. Don’t forget about the teleconverters for extra reach with the 100-400.

Excellent review Stefano, very informative.

200-600 for me is dead on sharp at either extreme. Tracking birds in flight is superb at 600mm.
You’re right about macro use of 100-400.
One other observation. You can put 200-600 on a gimbal since length doesn’t change. Also no internal dust problems.