p.33 #2 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Impressive. I also saw on someone’s video (can’t recall whose) that there isn’t much focus breathing.
Bokeh quality looked a bit hit or miss. Still I think in a $2000 US package this lens will move. Giddyup
AlphaPhotography wrote:
Does the 100-400mm GM have any known advantages that make it a GM over the 200-600mm G? AF speed? Minimum focus? Bokeh?
Steve Spencer wrote:
The 100-400 obviously has a faster max aperture and it has a shorter minimum focus with higher magnification. We'll see about AF speed and bokeh is probably a matter of taste. Do any of these things mean GM instead of GF? I don't think so. I think that is a marketing decision.
A typo, I suppose? «GM instead of GF» = girl friend ?
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, a typo and I could have sworn the max magnification was .2 when I looked before. Anyway, thanks for the corrections.
arbitrage wrote:
0.2x on DPReview. That makes sense. 0.28x with 1.4TC, 0.4x with 2xTC.
Compared to 0.14x for the 600/4GM, 0.196x with 1.4TC, 0.28x with 2xTC
Compared to 0.35x for the 100-400GM which would be 0.49x with the 1.4TC at 560. 0.7x with the 2xTC.
Ken writes 329mm but his chart shows 323mm. Not sure which is right, so let's call it 325mm. :)
Jun 11, 2019 at 03:24 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.33 #4 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
With regard to the 100-400 vs. this 200-600, I would think that obviously if you need 100-200 then the 100-400 is better. I also think that basically we know already that the 100-400 will have mostly a faster aperture (with a small range in the middle where they are equal), and has fantastic IQ and is smaller. So, from 100-400 I would prefer the GM 100-400, but if you want greater reach than 400 and shoot it very often at all this will be a compelling alternative. Even from 400-560, which you can easily get with the 100-400 and a 1.4X TC this new lens will be 2/3rds of a stop faster. I think it all comes down to how much reach you want. Personally, most of the time I am very happy with even 400mm of reach, so that would be my much more commonly used lens, but if I want a lens for wildlife this new lens would be a nice one to be able to add.
p.33 #5 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
naturephoto1 wrote:
I still think that I want the A7000/Mini A9 (particularly A7r size) more that the new 200-600mm lens. I would like this option for the purpose of a smaller lighter package to supplement my A7rIII. The 100-400mm GM with the A7000 would yield the equivalent to a 600mm f5.6 alone or 840mm f8 with the 1.4X TC. But, this is me. Of course the new 200-600mm with the new camera would also prove to be quite effective.
Rich
I don't know, Rich. I was eagerly waiting for the "A7000" and as a matter of fact bought an A6400 because I didn't want to wait anymore. But the more I think about it, say if a subject fills the A7RIII's frame at 600mm and it would fill the A7000's frame at 400mm, I would rather have the file from the A7RIII or a even higher MP full frame body (like the A9R that Geoff keeps dreaming about). Of course if one mainly shoots at the very long end, which I don't, then the benefit of "reach" offered by an APS-C body is obvious. A high end APS-C body will definitely have better AF and FPS than the A7RIII, but if Sony makes a higher MP full frame camera with top notch AF and decent FPS (say 12+), I may not be interested in the "A7000" anymore.
p.33 #6 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Steve Spencer wrote:
With regard to the 100-400 vs. this 200-600, I would think that obviously if you need 100-200 then the 100-400 is better. I also think that basically we know already that the 100-400 will have mostly a faster aperture (with a small range in the middle where they are equal), and has fantastic IQ and is smaller. So, from 100-400 I would prefer the GM 100-400, but if you want greater reach than 400 and shoot it very often at all this will be a compelling alternative. Even from 400-560, which you can easily get with the 100-400 and a 1.4X TC this new lens will be 2/3rds of a stop faster. I think it all comes down to how much reach you want. Personally, most of the time I am very happy with even 400mm of reach, so that would be my much more commonly used lens, but if I want a lens for wildlife this new lens would be a nice one to be able to add....Show more →
I am getting the 200-600 but also keeping the 100-400. I will use the 100-400 for a variety of things, landscape, foliage, flowers, close up insects (better MFD than the 200-600)... Now if someone makes an excellent E mount 70-300mm with the same IQ as the 100-400, I may reconsider.
p.33 #7 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
kdrk888 wrote:
I don't know, Rich. I was eagerly waiting for the "A7000" and as a matter of fact bought an A6400 because I didn't want to wait anymore. But the more I think about it, say if a subject fills the A7RIII's frame at 600mm and it would fill the A7000's frame at 400mm, I would rather have the file from the A7RIII or a even higher MP full frame body (like the A9R that Geoff keeps dreaming about). Of course if one mainly shoots at the very long end, which I don't, then the benefit of "reach" offered by an APS-C body is obvious. A high end APS-C body will definitely have better AF and FPS than the A7RIII, but if Sony makes a higher MP full frame camera with top notch AF and decent FPS (say 12+), I may not be interested in the "A7000" anymore....Show more →
...and going APS-C means more noise and less DR (about a stop compared to full frame). Shooting with a f/5.6 or f/6.3 lens is already challenging with a full frame camera in less than optimal lighting. A crop sensor will make things even worse.
p.33 #8 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
The 100-400GM is really a different tool. It is an excellent landscape lens for optical extraction, hiking, and select wildlife situations. For the serious wildlife / birding crowd on full frame it was more likely a stop gap until Sony expanded their range, which they now effectively done. I use my 100-400 much more than my 400GM or the ordered 600GM will be as I am more landscape oriented, but when there is a wildlife situation, need for very shallow depth of field, action shooting, the bigger GM’s win. Portraiture with a 400GM has a stunning look.
p.33 #9 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Steve Spencer wrote:
With regard to the 100-400 vs. this 200-600, I would think that obviously if you need 100-200 then the 100-400 is better. I also think that basically we know already that the 100-400 will have mostly a faster aperture (with a small range in the middle where they are equal), and has fantastic IQ and is smaller. So, from 100-400 I would prefer the GM 100-400, but if you want greater reach than 400 and shoot it very often at all this will be a compelling alternative. Even from 400-560, which you can easily get with the 100-400 and a 1.4X TC this new lens will be 2/3rds of a stop faster. I think it all comes down to how much reach you want. Personally, most of the time I am very happy with even 400mm of reach, so that would be my much more commonly used lens, but if I want a lens for wildlife this new lens would be a nice one to be able to add....Show more →
Totally agree Steve!
If 400mm is enough for you, the 100-400 should be the best option for its size and speed (only 1/3 stop advantage: f/5.6 vs f/6.3).
After that 400mm, the TC is needed for the GM zoom and the 200-600 bare seems to be a better option. (2/3 stop advantage: f/6.3 vs f/8)
p.33 #10 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
kdrk888 wrote:
I am getting the 200-600 but also keeping the 100-400. I will use the 100-400 for a variety of things, landscape, foliage, flowers, close up insects (better MFD than the 200-600)... Now if someone makes an excellent E mount 70-300mm with the same IQ as the 100-400, I may reconsider.
Hi Douglas,
I will wait and see/hear what you and others report on the 200-600mm. But, like you, I plan to keep my 100-400mm GM. I can load the 100-400mm GM attached to my A7rIII into my Mindshift Stash Master 13L (which fits and can replace the standard camera insert of the Elite 45L):
The new lens will not fit the Stash Master and I would need another case to carry the lens whether I have one at present, I am not sure. But, if I do purchase one of the Mindshift Elite 45L (possibly later at the year and possibly at Photo Plus in October) both options will fit this pack.
p.33 #12 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Justin Stone wrote:
Impressive. I also saw on someone’s video (can’t recall whose) that there isn’t much focus breathing.
Bokeh quality looked a bit hit or miss. Still I think in a $2000 US package this lens will move. Giddyup
The Canadian Sony site says 0.2x MM. There is no way a 600mm lens at that MFD could be 0.66x. All the reviews that have mentioned the MM also say 0.2x.
p.33 #13 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
arbitrage wrote:
The Canadian Sony site says 0.2x MM. There is no way a 600mm lens at that MFD could be 0.66x. All the reviews that have mentioned the MM also say 0.2x.
It is was 0.66x, Sony would definitely call it a macro!
p.33 #15 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
If going on safari the 200-600 on one body and the 135 1.8 on the other!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Totally agree Steve!
If 400mm is enough for you, the 100-400 should be the best option for its size and speed (only 1/3 stop advantage: f/5.6 vs f/6.3).
After that 400mm, the TC is needed for the GM zoom and the 200-600 bare seems to be a better option. (2/3 stop advantage: f/6.3 vs f/8)
p.33 #16 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
That sounds more like real life
arbitrage wrote:
The Canadian Sony site says 0.2x MM. There is no way a 600mm lens at that MFD could be 0.66x. All the reviews that have mentioned the MM also say 0.2x.
p.33 #17 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
I think this lens will pair really nice with the 70-200gm and the 1.4tc, and when I save up this will become my wildlife setup for the foreseeable future,
The 100-400 is still king for its versatility and I know it would be a mistake selling it to fund the 200-600
Getting a very solid lineup from Sony now, only problem is we have no second hand market at reasonable prices yet,
Will be nice to see sigma and tameron give us some of their telephoto lenses, the 500f4 at half the price of the Sony 600f4 has to have a market
p.33 #18 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Uncle Chip wrote:
I think this lens will pair really nice with the 70-200gm and the 1.4tc, and when I save up this will become my wildlife setup for the foreseeable future,
The 100-400 is still king for its versatility and I know it would be a mistake selling it to fund the 200-600
Getting a very solid lineup from Sony now, only problem is we have no second hand market at reasonable prices yet,
Will be nice to see sigma and tameron give us some of their telephoto lenses, the 500f4 at half the price of the Sony 600f4 has to have a market...Show more →
Traditionally there is a ~$2K USD price difference between a 500/4 and 600/4 of the same generation. There will not be a 500/4 for half the price. At best it would be $10K but more likely $11K.
p.33 #19 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
arbitrage wrote:
Traditionally there is a ~$2K USD price difference between a 500/4 and 600/4 of the same generation. There will not be a 500/4 for half the price. At best it would be $10K but more likely $11K.
I remember paying $9,500 for the Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM when it first came out. The best lens I ever had.
It was also light at 7 pounds. Can't wait to see what Sony does for this focal length.
With the Canon 1.4x, it was a competent 700/5.6 lens, The new Sony G super-tele zoom is not too shabby at 600/6.3, especially at only 4.5 pounds and $2K
Perhaps many hobbyists shooting birds and wildlife will be enticed to move to Sony just because of this new "affordable" and light super-tele zoom.
