p.49 #2 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
lluvia wrote:
Mark Galer has published his review on the Sony FE 200 600 G
Thanks...watching now.
He does compare throughout to the 100-400/1.4.
Short verdict: 200-600 at 600 is sharper than 100-400/1.4 at 560mm.
No real value to stopping down...sharp wide open!!
However, 100-400/1.4 AF better as something fast is getting very close. But 200-600 still very good away from MFD.
Magnification is a huge difference for MFD shooting (see 26:00 mark) in favour of the 100-400/1.4.
p.49 #3 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Many thanks for 42MP samples with the 200-600 G, finally after 2 weeks plus! Gotta wonder why it took so long. Then again, review quality so far was meh anyway.
Looking at these files @ 100% really helped in deciding between the 100-400 GM and 200-600 G, and my choice is the 100-400 GM. 1.4x TC is already here and delivers with 100-400 GM sharper results @ 560mm than the 200-600 @ 600mm, from what I have seen so far (tested the 100400 & 14TC set myself). Also substantially more flexible (dimensions, weight, MFD, 100mm, starting @ F4.5).
photomadnz wrote:
One of our local boys has just had an initial test of the 200-600 and 600. If you check out his Youtube you will see a link underneath for some Raws off the A7RIII finally. Theres a couple of the surf shots that come up really nicely with the right editing.... If, like me, you've been waiting to see some 42meg raws then here is an initial look...
p.49 #5 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
arbitrage wrote:
Thanks...watching now.
He does compare throughout to the 100-400/1.4.
Short verdict: 200-600 at 600 is sharper than 100-400/1.4 at 560mm.
No real value to stopping down...sharp wide open!!
However, 100-400/1.4 AF better as something fast is getting very close. But 200-600 still very good away from MFD.
Magnification is a huge difference for MFD shooting (see 26:00 mark) in favour of the 100-400/1.4.
That nicely summed up the main points of 45mins of sometimes repetitive dialogue in a few words. I'm waiting to hear your direct experience of it rather than the Sony Ambassadors.
p.49 #7 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
After weighing pros/cons and what I like to shoot I decided on the 100-400mm. One of the hardest decisions I have had to make on two lenses. Went and bought it today and very happy with my decision. Took a few photos and Wow! I will be canceling my preorder on the 200-600mm. I needed a multi purpose lens and the MFD is important to me. I do not want to have to stand back <8 feet to capture focus on something close to me. I rarely need 400 plus mm too. Also the weight and portability. The 100-400mm is certainly bigger and heavier than my 70-300 but still manageable. The image quality is spectacular. No regrets. Mark Galen's review on the 200-600mm also helped me make up my mind. Sounds like a great lens. Just not for me.
p.49 #8 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
fadeslayer wrote:
It looks like reviews from ambassadors rarely tell bad things about newly released lenses... I do not know why
I don't think that's fair, at least when it comes to Mark Galer.
He very specifically and repeatedly commented on the main shortcomings of the 200 - 600 vs. the 100 - 400, talking about the reduced minimum focusing distance, the weaker reliability for tracking subjects coming towards the camera due to the less sophisticated motor drive, and also the narrower maximum aperture when zooming, which can be a deal breaker for non-A9 cameras if you want to use the 1.4x teleconverter and still shoot moving subjects.
p.49 #10 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
pwpub wrote:
Many thanks for 42MP samples with the 200-600 G, finally after 2 weeks plus! Gotta wonder why it took so long. Then again, review quality so far was meh anyway.
Looking at these files @ 100% really helped in deciding between the 100-400 GM and 200-600 G, and my choice is the 100-400 GM. 1.4x TC is already here and delivers with 100-400 GM sharper results @ 560mm than the 200-600 @ 600mm, from what I have seen so far (tested the 100400 & 14TC set myself). Also substantially more flexible (dimensions, weight, MFD, 100mm, starting @ F4.5).
Yeah, for me I have the 100-400 and 1.4x so I cancelled my pre-order. There is not enough there to justify the lens for me. Unless I'm shooting from a car I would end up grabbing the the smaller setup. So I'll save the money for the A9ii
p.49 #11 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
pwpub wrote:
...1.4x TC is already here and delivers with 100-400 GM sharper results @ 560mm than the 200-600 @ 600mm, from what I have seen so far
Well, Mark Galer in what you call "The first really good, professional and thorough review of the 200-600" states several times exactly the contrary: that at 600mm the 200-600mm is sharper than the 100-400mm + 1.4x. at 560mm.
p.49 #12 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
I have watched video, and samples in 4K, I don't have 1.4x TC to my 100-400, but in many of them I can't find the superior quality the 200-600 seems to have according to his words. Some of them are out of focus too.
He showed only a single frame comparison between 100-400+1.4x and 200-600, and there is a small (maybe negligible) difference between them, but no info is available on shooting conditions, and no HQ sample of that comparison is available, so I am not convinced of the need to switch my 1-4 to the 2-6, I will take 1.4x and try 2.0x too, I can't lose AF reliability (which seems a no-go in some situations with the 2-6), close-focus capabilities and packing compactness for a zic in sharpness which I am not convinced of...
I already spent 2.1k€ for the 1-4, so I would not save anything once I sell it to get 2-6 at 1.8k€ here in Italy, and I will lose a lot more.
Surely I will watch thoroughly all the incoming reviews, and user hands-on experience, to assess 2-6 real value on the field, but no hurry (maybe I will save a lot to get to one of those 4 or 6 GBOs )
p.49 #13 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
lluvia wrote:
Mark Galer has published his review on the Sony FE 200 600 G
Such an excellent review. While the 200-600 gets some really exceptional results in controlled environments I'll probably end up going with the GM with TC for the portability and already wonderful IQ.
p.49 #14 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Unfortunately, there are already conflicting reports on sharpness. Optyczne.pl, the parent site of lenstip, which is usually neutral but positive, writes "Based on the first impressions of use, we can very much pretend about the quality of imaging.In our opinion, up to half of the focal length ranges can be successfully used with the full relative aperture. The longest end, however, requires stopping the aperture (eg up to f / 8), which will result in sharper pictures. This was especially noticeable when photographing wildly distant wild animals. Sometimes both longitudinal and transversal chromatic aberration can be noticed.Similarly, the situation looks like vignetting at the maximum relative aperture." https://www.optyczne.pl/706.1-artyku%C5%82-Nowe_superteleobiektywy_Sony_w_naszych_r%C4%99kach.html
Maybe both they and Mark are correct, perhaps because of copy variation, which is why I want to hear from people like Arbitrage.
p.49 #15 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Of course I watched his review and statements - but he only used 24MP bodies here (A9), not 42MP, as far as I am aware. And his conclusion is based on just one sample shot if I'm correct. There a a few other reviews showing that the 200-600 G can be really sharp at 600mm, but these are also 24MP only.
If Mark did also use the A7R for some examples, then one might have to be dealing with yet another sample variation plague from Sony. I did notice sharpness variations in some other reviews (Polo) but was unsure if due to user error or lens sample.
Maximilian wrote:
Well, Mark Galer in what you call "The first really good, professional and thorough review of the 200-600" states several times exactly the contrary: that at 600mm the 200-600mm is sharper than the 100-400mm + 1.4x. at 560mm.
p.49 #16 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Based on what I've seen on that excellent Mark Galer presentation I've decided to cancel my order for the 200-600 and continue using my 100-400GM with the 1.4 TC on my A7RIII.
I've based this on economics and features, the 100-400 I've had for a little over a year and it cost me £2500, if I sold it today I'd be very lucky to get £1,500, most probably less.
So to effectively lose £1000 in 1 year and then spend an additional £1800 does not make sense to me.
The only factor that would swing it would an incremental improvement in performance, I'm afraid that I don't see enough of that in any sample images. Also the ergonomics are tipped in favour of the 100-400.
If I was coming into this without prior ownership of the 100-400 combo I'd buy the 200-600 in a heartbeat.
I'll probably just give it another year to assess what results others are getting with the 200-600 and then re-visit the decision process, I think that my wife is happier as well
p.49 #17 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
I would have liked to see more sample images of the actual comparison between the 1-4/1.4TC and the 2-6. At least the one image he showed in the video of the structure/sign.
I think the differences in sharpness will end up being negligible in real world. As Mark says in the video, no one would complain about the 1-4/1.4TC sharpness and only putting it side by side with the 2-6 can you see the small improvement. I think the sharpness finding is less a knock against the 1-4/1.4TC and more so just a confirmation that the "G" status of the 200-600 didn't result in a mediocre IQ lens.
My concern would be if you have to stop down the 2-6 to f/8 to get an acceptable image. Because then the 2/3 stop benefit is gone and you are just 40mm ahead of the 1-4/1.4TC. I like to shoot wide open on my lenses as much as possible, as that is what you pay for. Almost all lenses test better stopped down slightly but for almost all of my long lenses I've owned I have been satisfied with the wide open performance and whatever increase in sharpness was there stopping down didn't make enough of a difference to waste the light gathering. I've only owned two long lenses where I felt I really needed to stop down and those were the Sigma 150-600C and the Nikon 200-500. Both of those benefited from 1/3-2/3 significantly enough that I tried to stop them down any time I had the light to do so. The fact that I had to stop down the Sigma to f/8 anyways is why I ultimately chose my Canon 100-400II/1.4TC over the Sigma. The Canon I could shoot wide open at f/8 and I only lost the 40mm (and the AF was as good or better than the Sigma).
There certainly is no wrong choice between these two lenses and even arguments to own both. I will be excited to test these myself but I likely won't do much controlled testing, mostly just get out and shoot the 200-600 and see if I'm happy. Hopefully, there will still be some swallows around in August to try the 2-6 on them.
p.49 #18 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
arbitrage wrote:
I would have liked to see more sample images of the actual comparison between the 1-4/1.4TC and the 2-6. At least the one image he showed in the video of the structure/sign.
I think the differences in sharpness will end up being negligible in real world. As Mark says in the video, no one would complain about the 1-4/1.4TC sharpness and only putting it side by side with the 2-6 can you see the small improvement. I think the sharpness finding is less a knock against the 1-4/1.4TC and more so just a confirmation that the "G" status of the 200-600 didn't result in a mediocre IQ lens.
My concern would be if you have to stop down the 2-6 to f/8 to get an acceptable image. Because then the 2/3 stop benefit is gone and you are just 40mm ahead of the 1-4/1.4TC. I like to shoot wide open on my lenses as much as possible, as that is what you pay for. Almost all lenses test better stopped down slightly but for almost all of my long lenses I've owned I have been satisfied with the wide open performance and whatever increase in sharpness was there stopping down didn't make enough of a difference to waste the light gathering. I've only owned two long lenses where I felt I really needed to stop down and those were the Sigma 150-600C and the Nikon 200-500. Both of those benefited from 1/3-2/3 significantly enough that I tried to stop them down any time I had the light to do so. The fact that I had to stop down the Sigma to f/8 anyways is why I ultimately chose my Canon 100-400II/1.4TC over the Sigma. The Canon I could shoot wide open at f/8 and I only lost the 40mm (and the AF was as good or better than the Sigma).
There certainly is no wrong choice between these two lenses and even arguments to own both. I will be excited to test these myself but I likely won't do much controlled testing, mostly just get out and shoot the 200-600 and see if I'm happy. Hopefully, there will still be some swallows around in August to try the 2-6 on them....Show more →
Hi Geoff,
I am going to rely on you Guinea pigs and see if I can sell my Canon new FD 500mm f4.5L, drop in filters, TCs, and extension tubes. Hopefully these will sell. No one can argue the size and weight advantage of the 100-400mm GM and the 1.4X (and 2X) TCs. Depending upon everyone's results, and if I can sell the equipment for suffiicient money, I will use that to help pay for the 200-600mm G lens or the A7000/A9 Mini/A9II Mini when released.
p.49 #19 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
cpe1991 wrote:
Unfortunately, there are already conflicting reports on sharpness. Optyczne.pl, the parent site of lenstip, which is usually neutral but positive, writes "Based on the first impressions of use, we can very much pretend about the quality of imaging.In our opinion, up to half of the focal length ranges can be successfully used with the full relative aperture. The longest end, however, requires stopping the aperture (eg up to f / 8), which will result in sharper pictures. This was especially noticeable when photographing wildly distant wild animals. Sometimes both longitudinal and transversal chromatic aberration can be noticed.Similarly, the situation looks like vignetting at the maximum relative aperture." https://www.optyczne.pl/706.1-artyku%C5%82-Nowe_superteleobiektywy_Sony_w_naszych_r%C4%99kach.html
Maybe both they and Mark are correct, perhaps because of copy variation, which is why I want to hear from people like Arbitrage. ...Show more →
I looked at their samples shot at f6.3 and 600mm. They are pretty bad, but I'd chalk that up to atmospheric issues in the animal shots. It will be very disappointing if you need to shoot at f8 for sharp images as I see little point to using it over the 1-400 at that point.
p.49 #20 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
scott f wrote:
I looked at their samples shot at f6.3 and 600mm. They are pretty bad, but I'd chalk that up to atmospheric issues in the animal shots. It will be very disappointing if you need to shoot at f8 for sharp images as I see little point to using it over the 1-400 at that point.
Yeah, if you have to stop down then I'd favor sticking with the 100-400/1.4TC also. Right now I'm putting my blinders on and trusting in Mark Galer's assesment that wide open is just as good as stopped down. He at least had the lens for extended testing (allowing him to control more variables) and not just a one day Sony event as most of the other reviews, including Optyczne, had it for.
