p.50 #1 · 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 →
I think he said it is sharp wide open. The MTF supports this. No super tele is worth purchasing if it isnt sharp at its widest aperture.
p.50 #2 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
arbitrage wrote:
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.
Hi Geoff,
We all will be watching to see if all of the initial buyers are finding sample varitation such that some 200-600mm lenses do and some don't need to be stopped down and how they compare with the 100-400mm GM alone and with the 1.4X TC.
p.50 #3 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
scrappydog wrote:
I think he said it is sharp wide open. The MTF supports this. No super tele is worth purchasing if it isnt sharp at its widest aperture.
Yes Mark Galer said it is. But the report from the other Optyczne site claimed it needed to be stopped down at the long end for more distant subjects.
p.50 #5 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
arbitrage wrote:
Just watching this now so don't shoot the messenger if it sucks.....
...
Watched it... more balanced than expected given the source.
The bottom line I gathered was the following:
-> Quality per dollar award goes to D500 + 200-500VR
-> Best overall package for optimizing image quality goes to A9 + 200-600
My wish, as a Nikon shooter,... improve the design of the 200-500 by adding nano-coating, fast motor, and internal zoom. I've been saying this for years... looks like Sony was listening to me
p.50 #6 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
arbitrage wrote:
Just watching this now so don't shoot the messenger if it sucks.....
Can you take seriously anyone who is still recommending the ancient 400mm f/5.6 prime + 1.4xTC as the best alternative for 600mm for Canon? He also downplays sharpness as a factor. No outdoor testing, just garbage shots of a book spine, relatively close up. The 200-500mm is optimized for closer distances, the Tamron for longer distance, for example. A very flawed review. Why did I watch it. I recommend give it a miss.
p.50 #7 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Well a lot of the feedback here is interesting. I will admit I have pre-ordered the 200-600 so I am trying to learn everything I can about before the end of July. I do already own the 100-400mm GM with the 1.4x teleconverter so maybe if I do get it I am wasting my money. I am not sure yet. I was very interesting in the long end using it from 400-840mm with and without the 1.4X teleconverter. I will really just use my a9 on it since beyond f/8 may a7riii will be challenged to auto focus well. The thing using an APS-C body with the 100-400, or even with a 100-400+1.4x converter gets me out to 840 but then I have to wait for that body and still spend the ~$1400 Sony will probably ask for it if is a fast APS-C with better ergonomics. I currently use a grip on both my cameras when shooting with the GM lenses and for me that improves the controllability a lot.
p.50 #8 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
cpe1991 wrote:
Can you take seriously anyone who is still recommending the ancient 400mm f/5.6 prime + 1.4xTC as the best alternative for 600mm for Canon? He also downplays sharpness as a factor. No outdoor testing, just garbage shots of a book spine, relatively close up. The 200-500mm is optimized for closer distances, the Tamron for longer distance, for example. A very flawed review. Why did I watch it. I recommend give it a miss.
p.50 #9 · 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 →
I agree and mine is on preorder along with the 600 F4. When a person says it is sharper than the 100400GM at 540mm with a 1.4x how much sharper? Pixel peeping sharper or noticeable. How does it render and other things. His review is insightful but the proof of the pudding is using the lens and seeing how it preforms and the images it produces first hand.
My thoughts are its going to be a real winner and most will end up using both zooms as the both excellent in different areas.
p.50 #10 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
I’ve got the 200-600 on preorder and already have the 100-400 GM and the 1.4TC. I could probably budget enough over the next few months to pickup a used Canon mkII 500 or 600mm and pair it with the MC11. I admit it’s a tempting idea since I shoot mainly large BIF like Herons and hawks. That extra light of an F4 lens is so tough to beat. I just have to decide if the extra $4-5000 is really worth it. I can’t even imagine shelling out $12k for a single lens since I’m not doing this sort of work professionally. Even the $5-7000 for a used mkII is tough for me to justify, but it would my “forever” solution.
p.50 #11 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
I’m confused. the Sony 200-600 outperforms the other lenses in every category tested but in the end he recommends the d500 200-500 over the A6400’s 200-600. Lol. These guys
p.50 #12 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
For my usage, whether the 200-600 is 5% sharper at 600mm than the 100-400+1.4 TC at 560mm, or the other way around, doesn't really matter. I like the 200-600 because it gets to 600mm without using an adapter and gets to 840mm with the 1.4x TC. The very short/light travel of the zoom ring from 200 to 600 and vice versa is a very very important feature for me as I will be using 200-600 for airshows a lot. I am keeping the 100-400 for a lot of other stuff, travel, landscape, foliage, close-up shots (because of its MFD). I am glad the options are there.
p.50 #13 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
C_n_red_again wrote:
I’m confused. the Sony 200-600 outperforms the other lenses in every category tested but in the end he recommends the d500 200-500 over the A6400’s 200-600. Lol. These guys
I was thinking the same thing. I would have been ok with them saying that the Nikon combo was the best option if price is the main consideration (which I agree with), but I don't feel like the conclusion made much sense and needed more clarification.
p.50 #14 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
I am not a Nikon shooter but I have read just about every review and spoken to Nikon shooters who have the 200-500mm. The majority view is that the lens is heavy, slow to focus and is not sharp at 500mm. I'd buy the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF like a shot if it wasn't on back order, but wouldn't accept a 200-500mm if it was given to me. Just read the lenstip reviews on both lenses to see the deficiencies of the zoom. I just don't understand Tony Northrup. He panned the 600mm since he couldn't track small fast birds with the 2xTC at 1200mm on the A9. I couldn't track anything in flight at 1200mm with any camera system, unless it was a hovering helicopter or a slow lazy distant heron or equivalent.
p.50 #15 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
The TN video was a let down. My understanding of it was the Nikon kit won with the better handling of the DSLR compared to the tiny A6400. I was hoping he'd add in the 100-400/1.4TC comparison for another data point at 560mm since he included the 200-500 at only 500mm.
The only thing I took away was that the 1.4TC may not be any better than a bigger crop of the bare lens. Disappointing if true as I'd like to use this at 840mm to make my 400DOII/2xTCIII no longer needed. Of course indoor testing at fairly close distance may not be the best test situation for a 600mm lens??
p.50 #16 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
cpe1991 wrote:
I am not a Nikon shooter but I have read just about every review and spoken to Nikon shooters who have the 200-500mm. The majority view is that the lens is heavy, slow to focus and is not sharp at 500mm. I'd buy the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF like a shot if it wasn't on back order, but wouldn't accept a 200-500mm if it was given to me. Just read the lenstip reviews on both lenses to see the deficiencies of the zoom. I just don't understand Tony Northrup. He panned the 600mm since he couldn't track small fast birds with the 2xTC at 1200mm on the A9. I couldn't track anything in flight at 1200mm with any camera system, unless it was a hovering helicopter or a slow lazy distant heron or equivalent....Show more →
Pretty strong words here... "but wouldn't accept a 200-500mm if it was given to me. Just read the lenstip reviews... " I think you'd make a huge error in judgement if you wouldn't use the lens if it were given to you!
As a shooter with a 200-400mm f/4 VR, 200-500mm f/5.6VR, and a 500mm PF, I have no problem picking up and using any of these lenses when it is the right lens for the job. In fact, I left my superior 200-400mm f/4 VR home during a recent trip to Northwest British Columbia. I was photographing a wide variety of wildlife, and the 200-500VR did just fine w/ all of our cameras. Had I not had a 200-500 on one of our D500's I would have lost out on the opportunity to photograph a wolverine.
Does the lens have an internal zoom, faster AF motor, or Nikon's best coatings?... No! However, it is sharp from 200-400mm and sharp enough out to 500mm. In addition, the VR is one of the real highlights of the lens.
With all of this said, I'd be on the list to buy the Sony 200-600 if I were a sony shooter with an A9.
cheers,
bruce
p.50 #17 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
cpe1991 wrote:
I am not a Nikon shooter but I have read just about every review and spoken to Nikon shooters who have the 200-500mm. The majority view is that the lens is heavy, slow to focus and is not sharp at 500mm. I'd buy the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF like a shot if it wasn't on back order, but wouldn't accept a 200-500mm if it was given to me. Just read the lenstip reviews on both lenses to see the deficiencies of the zoom. I just don't understand Tony Northrup. He panned the 600mm since he couldn't track small fast birds with the 2xTC at 1200mm on the A9. I couldn't track anything in flight at 1200mm with any camera system, unless it was a hovering helicopter or a slow lazy distant heron or equivalent....Show more →
---------------------------------------------
OwlsEyes wrote:
Pretty strong words here... "but wouldn't accept a 200-500mm if it was given to me. Just read the lenstip reviews... " I think you'd make a huge error in judgement if you wouldn't use the lens if it were given to you!
As a shooter with a 200-400mm f/4 VR, 200-500mm f/5.6VR, and a 500mm PF, I have not problem picking up and using any of these lenses when the it is the right lens for the job. In fact, I left my superior 200-400mm f/4 VR home during a recent trip to Northwest British Columbia. I was photographing a wide variety of wildlife, and the 200-500VR did just fine w/ all of our cameras. In fact, had I not had a 200-500 on one of our D500's I would have lost out on the opportunity to photograph a wolverine.
Does the lens have an internal zoom, faster AF motor, or Nikon's best coatings?... No! However, it is sharp from 200-400mm and sharp enough out to 500mm. In addition, the VR is one of the real highlights of the lens.
With all of this said, I'd be on the list to buy the Sony 200-600 if I were a sony shooter with an A9.
cheers,
bruce...Show more →
I agree with Bruce. There really is nothing wrong with the 200-500, even wide open at 500mm as long as it’s a good copy. I’ll actually be testing my 200-500 & D500 against my A7r iii and 200-600. I mostly want the Sony lens because of the internal zoom, lighter weight and potentially faster focusing.
p.50 #18 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
My take on the Nikon 200-500 is it is pretty good wide open and I certainly shot it a lot at f/5.6 but once I tried it stopped down to 6.3 and 7.1 I did see a significant enough improvement to stop it down whenever I could. f/8 didn't give anything over f/7.1. f/7.1 gave some improvement over f/6.3 but I was really happy once at f/6.3. My standards were set pretty high as all my previous gear was Canon supertele primes, 200-400wEXT and 100-400II which are all amazing wide open. Since then I've just owned Nikon primes and the Sony 100-400 and I never bother stopping any of those down.
p.50 #19 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
As a non-Nikon shooter I'd like to add that in all the discussion about the Nikon 200-500mm it shouldn't be forgotten how cheap the lens actually is. You can buy it here in Germany for just under 1100 Euro, which is a whole 1000 Euro less than the Sony 200-600mm. Half the price indeed.
I'm amazed at this low price for a lens with its figures: it may have some deficiencies, but it's nonetheless enough to make me a bit jealous of Nikon shooters.
p.50 #20 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
aae991 wrote:
I’ve got the 200-600 on preorder and already have the 100-400 GM and the 1.4TC. I could probably budget enough over the next few months to pickup a used Canon mkII 500 or 600mm and pair it with the MC11. I admit it’s a tempting idea since I shoot mainly large BIF like Herons and hawks. That extra light of an F4 lens is so tough to beat. I just have to decide if the extra $4-5000 is really worth it. I can’t even imagine shelling out $12k for a single lens since I’m not doing this sort of work professionally. Even the $5-7000 for a used mkII is tough for me to justify, but it would my “forever” solution....Show more →
I used the Metabones V adapter and was very happy with it. You might want to ask around and see which was does AF better with the Canon 500 or 600 I had both they were series II USM. Just sold both and preordered the two Sony's.
