AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM | |
mitesh wrote:
Joshua,
Wonderful examples and a very balanced, practical write up! I think you have made a very logical decision based on your requirements and experience. You have limited your downside financial risk by buying a used lens at an attractive price, while still giving yourself plenty of operational capability and time to see how Sony's future offerings pan out. Like you, I pre-ordered the Sony 400 GM lens, but after a lot of internal debate, I canceled. Over the course of dozens of PMs with a few other FMers, including @arbitrage@, I actually made some of the same arguments as you did in support of choosing a Canon 600/4 II. In the end, curiously enough, I changed my mind again and decided to go with the Sony 400 GM. Maybe I'm writing this post partly as therapy for myself, as I clearly need help  .
As background, I owned and shot with a Canon 300/2.8, 600/4, 200-400/4, and 800/5.6, as well as a Sigma 500/4. Looking back through my LR catalog from 2013 to 2016, nearly 90% of my wildlife images were shot between 400mm and 800mm. I enjoyed having the ability to reach out to 1120mm and 1600mm with extenders, but I think I only have a handful of shots at those FLs that I have even looked at twice. So, from a focal length perspective, I knew that 800mm was enough to cover my needs.
I never would have considered a 400/2.8 lens as my main lens, simply because I've always thought it is a relatively short focal length for wildlife photography. However, the ability of the Sony extenders working in conjunction with the latest bodies to maintain image quality and a high level of autofocus performance really changes the equation. The Sony 400 GM, when paired with extenders, offers a 560/4 and 800/5.6 with less degradation in image quality or AF performance than any other manufacturer's combos. That means I could get a lens built natively for the Sony FE MILC platform that 1) offers me the fastest available aperture at the focal lengths I use most, 2) weighs significantly less than any available 400/2.8, 600/4, or 800/5.6, and 3) would be much more compact than what I previously used:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-6hGCd2Q/0/O/i-6hGCd2Q.png
(the Sony combo above would be slightly longer than pictured, as a 2x extender would be needed to make it equivalent to the Canon combo).
Like many, I was reasonably satisfied with the performance of EF lenses adapted to the a9. Geoff and I shot with the Sigma 500/4 paired with the a9 quite a bit this past spring in Florida. The performance got even better with FW updates. I don't know how it could be quantified, but the native AF is generally going to outperform adapted AF. In bright light, I don't know that I could tell a difference just shooting stationary targets in my yard. In dim light and longer FLs, there is a definite difference, and that would probably be magnified with moving subjects. Not to mention that Sony's new telephoto lenses (100-400 GM and 400 GM) allow you to shoot the a9 at full 20 FPS, and also utilize the new dual XD linear motors, which are supposed to drive AF faster (could be very important maintaining continuous focus in between frames, which is more challenging when shooting 20 FPS).
The ease of transporting and handling the Sony 400 GM compared to a 600mm or 800mm lens can't be ignored. I still am amazed every time I pick up the a9 + 400 GM. I can fit it into a backpack, whereas I couldn't fit a 1DX + 800mm mounted into any backpack that I owned.
Given the options available today for hobbyists, I think we can all agree that the 400 GM represents the typical "paying thousands more for the last 5% of performance". For those who want a long, fast prime but don't want to deal with adapted lenses, it's either this lens or wait. I think this lens paired with the 100-400 GM is a superb combo for nature and wildlife photographers. Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind when the 500/600 GM are announced  ....Show more →
Mitesh, thank you for stopping by and for your keen feedback! Obviously, we have had similar and fairly long history of our lens selection although I never bothered with the 200-400mm zoom.
After I could repeat the AF results following the FW upgrade using my 400mm lens, I felt encouraged with the move to the 600mm. Yes, the AF works better if the lighting conditions are good but from what I could tell, it wasn't too shabby either if they were not ideal; I didn't encounter any issues so far during my limited usage. Now, the actual usage in the next several weeks locally and in Bosque in January will tell whether my decision is sound or less so  .
No question about the weight difference and the footprint between the two lenses. In addition, we still have to add the adapter, too, going the adaption route. You are absolutely correct, describing the case as "paying thousands more for the last 5% of performance". That scenario has come up more than just a few times, at least in my head.
I will be using the 600mm more for reach and in the case of the bare lens, for the resolution, going for "more details in the feather", so to speak. I will also pair that up with the GM 100-400mm just in case the AF of the adapted lens rears its ugly head and when a native lens would come in handy. And yes, that GM lens with one or the other Sony TC could help me out if push comes to shove in the AF department . My CR trips were quite successful although my gear back then was a tad less effective in the AF department. I am convinced that the 600mm will do even better now after the FW upgrade and now with a little more reach without any TC. We haven't done anything yet and it is more in the planing stage but a trip to CR and/or Ecuador or Pantanal is feasible next year.
Both of us, you and I, reserve the right to change our mind as this is a fairly rapidly changing AF world we live in . Cheers!
|
