p.51 #1 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Maximilian wrote:
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.
There are several head-to-head comparison reviews with the Sigma 150-600mm C and the original Tamron 150-600mm, which are cheaper, lighter, have a wider range and frequently rated better. Here's one: https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c
where the reviewer recommends the Tamron over the Nikon for Nikon shooters and sums up the 200-500mm by " Pros – Razor sharp up close; reliable accurate autofocus; tracks birds in flight well; good image stabilization.
Cons – soft at long distances, especially in the corners at longer focal lengths; big and bulky; large VR shift; initial AF acquisition is slower than Tami or Sigi; less range and shorter reach than Sigi or Tami.".
p.51 #4 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
AGeoJO wrote:
Haha, Bob, and that before the lens is even readily available...
508 of those posts were before the actual announcement as this used to be the rumor thread/leaked prototype thread that I created and then Fred made it official on announcement day.
where the reviewer recommends the Tamron over the Nikon for Nikon shooters and sums up the 200-500mm by " Pros – Razor sharp up close; reliable accurate autofocus; tracks birds in flight well; good image stabilization.
Cons – soft at long distances, especially in the corners at longer focal lengths; big and bulky; large VR shift; initial AF acquisition is slower than Tami or Sigi; less range and shorter reach than Sigi or Tami.".
Can't confirm that, even though I used the Nikon 200-500 with the D500 for quite some time. To me the lens was sharp from wide open even on the long end. Also, for what it isn't particularly big and bulky. The size/weight comes with the territory. I tried the Tamron 150-600 once or twice and found the 200-500 superior in performance on the long end. Could be due to copy variation, though. My only beef was the slow initial focus acquisition. I think you will find plenty of folks who were/are perfectly happy with the 200-500.
p.51 #6 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
There is a long thread about the Nikon 200-500/5.6 in the Nikon forum here at FM. My impression is that the folks there are very pleased with that lens. Lots of nice images too!
p.51 #7 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Chris_88 wrote:
Can't confirm that, even though I used the Nikon 200-500 with the D500 for quite some time. To me the lens was sharp from wide open even on the long end. Also, for what it isn't particularly big and bulky. The size/weight comes with the territory. I tried the Tamron 150-600 once or twice and found the 200-500 superior in performance on the long end. Could be due to copy variation, though. My only beef was the slow initial focus acquisition. I think you will find plenty of folks who were/are perfectly happy with the 200-500.
As long as the lens does what you want it to and lives up to your standards, then you will be rightly happy with it. And, as lensrentals has written, there can be bigger differences in IQ between copies of the same lens than between similar lenses from different manufacturers. My comments were in response to that ridiculous review by Northrup rating the 200-500mm better than the new 200-600mm, based on absurd testing and odd choice of other lenses.
I shoot across systems and am always looking for improving my gear for different situations, irrespective of manufacturer, and it rankles to read or hear misleading reviews.
p.51 #8 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Bobg657 wrote:
Back to the Sony lens, I find it amazing this thread has over 1,000 posts, Sony has certainly hit a hot spot with this release!
Bob
Sony had nothing over 400mm for a long time (not counting using TCs, or non E mount lenses), but had 10mm to 400mm covered by E mount lenses from Sony and third parties. I am not surprised by the excitement and attention this brings.
p.51 #9 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
cpe1991 wrote:
As long as the lens does what you want it to and lives up to your standards, then you will be rightly happy with it. And, as lensrentals has written, there can be bigger differences in IQ between copies of the same lens than between similar lenses from different manufacturers. My comments were in response to that ridiculous review by Northrup rating the 200-500mm better than the new 200-600mm, based on absurd testing and odd choice of other lenses.
I shoot across systems and am always looking for improving my gear for different situations, irrespective of manufacturer, and it rankles to read or hear misleading reviews. ...Show more →
Sorry, I didn't bother to watch that review (that was a good decision, it seems). I personally would be happy if my pre-ordered 200-600 was as good or slightly better at 600 wide open as my since sold 200-500 used to be at 500 5.6.
p.51 #10 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
I just came across this review from a German photographer (video review is in English) comparing the 100-400 GM with the 200-600. He provides some very nice images from the 200-600, including some with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. He also provides some raw image downloads.
In a nutshell, he states what most other reviewers have: naked IQ between the 100-400 and 200-600 goes to the 100-400, but with the 1.4x added to the 100-400, the 200-600 wins slightly in IQ.
p.51 #11 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Thanks for the links. I’m still torn on the 200-600. That $2000 might go a long way towards helping finance a Canon 600 mkII (with its limitations) and getting prime quality and f4. Then again $6500-7000 is a lot of money to spend on a lens that will be used infrequently. I’ll still dream about the Sony 600mm too 😊. I’m definitely keeping my 100-400 GM and the 1.4 no matter what I do on the 200-600mm.
p.51 #13 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
AvianScott wrote:
I just came across this review from a German photographer (video review is in English) comparing the 100-400 GM with the 200-600. He provides some very nice images from the 200-600, including some with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. He also provides some raw image downloads.
In a nutshell, he states what most other reviewers have: naked IQ between the 100-400 and 200-600 goes to the 100-400, but with the 1.4x added to the 100-400, the 200-600 wins slightly in IQ.
The raw files he offers for downloads did not impress me. The shot of the eagle on his website would have been a much better raw download, but I can't find it as a raw file.
p.51 #14 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
fwiw- Sony rep was demo-ing the 200-600, 135 and 24 today and got a chance to take them all for a brief tour of the store......
The 200-600 is quite a lens, very light, the 1/4 turn barrel focus adj awesome (just the right tension and quick to zoom in and out, the SS modes are cool- especially the latest pan/track version. Focus was good, the only thing I might say, is I did expect it to be slightly quicker to lock on with the a9 but well within reason regardless. Also got the try with 1.4 extension- seamless. Of course no images to peep, but in the hands and back of the screen it was fantastic... If I ever get a reason to rent or buy (like africa safari!) perfect weapon!
The 24/1.4 and 135...drool! Now I just need to fund them haha.
p.51 #15 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
aae991 wrote:
The raw files he offers for downloads did not impress me. The shot of the eagle on his website would have been a much better raw download, but I can't find it as a raw file.
Why should he give you free images? I wouldn't either.
For sharpness comparisons the provided RAWs are plenty fine and show the 200-600G basically on par with the 100-400GM. Or noticeably better if the GM is used with TC. Pixel peeping the non TC images the 200-600 actually seem very sharp
While at it, I pixel peeped his TC images and compared that to cropped non-TC ones. This seemed to show that the cropped images are overall better for both zooms! Which is somewhat surprising as multiple reviewers stated that using the TC1.4 on the GM would yield better results than just cropping.
p.51 #16 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Daran wrote:
Why should he give you free images? I wouldn't either.
For sharpness comparisons the provided RAWs are plenty fine and show the 200-600G basically on par with the 100-400GM. Or noticeably better if the GM is used with TC. Pixel peeping the non TC images the 200-600 actually seem very sharp
While at it, I pixel peeped his TC images and compared that to cropped non-TC ones. This seemed to show that the cropped images are overall better for both zooms! Which is somewhat surprising as multiple reviewers stated that using the TC1.4 on the GM would yield better results than just cropping....Show more →
I find those raws quite unimpressing, if quality is that, 100-400 looks superior. I can't see anything better than what I obtain with 100-400 now.
p.51 #17 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
fadeslayer wrote:
I find those raws quite unimpressing, if quality is that, 100-400 looks superior. I can't see anything better than what I obtain with 100-400 now.
What are you on about? The set contains RAW images taken with the 100-400 and the 200-600. I compared them. Did you?
p.51 #18 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
I am talking about absolute quality, I can get much better results in with my 100-400 on A9 than those samples, judging by shot distance/subject size I am not seeing impressive results from 2-6 samples.
p.51 #19 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
fadeslayer wrote:
I am talking about absolute quality, I can get much better results in with my 100-400 on A9 than those samples, judging by shot distance/subject size I am not seeing impressive results from 2-6 samples.
I don't doubt that. But the question at hand isn't whether you could get better pictures than some other photographer. It is whether the pictures of one photographer would look better or worse using one or the other lens. The limited absolute quality of those particular RAW samples only reflect the objects and conditions at hand when taking the sample shots (e.g. flat, boring light).
For judging the lens these RAWs are way better than the other samples currently available online. They are are shot at reasonable air quality and distance. And they show results with the known to be good 100-400, allowing direct comparisons. So now I know that the 200-600 is optically about as good as the 100-400 (at least these specific copies). And it is significantly better than the 100-400 with a teleconverter. So I'm happy with my preorder
p.51 #20 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Daran wrote:
I don't doubt that. But the question at hand isn't whether you could get better pictures than some other photographer. It is whether the pictures of one photographer would look better or worse using one or the other lens. The limited absolute quality of those particular RAW samples only reflect the objects and conditions at hand when taking the sample shots (e.g. flat, boring light).
For judging the lens these RAWs are way better than the other samples currently available online. They are are shot at reasonable air quality and distance. And they show results with the known to be good 100-400, allowing direct comparisons. So now I know that the 200-600 is optically about as good as the 100-400 (at least these specific copies). And it is significantly better than the 100-400 with a teleconverter. So I'm happy with my preorder...Show more →
I think that you are incorrect. From my understanding thus far, on an absolute basis, the 100-400mm provides sharper images than the 200-600mm. The 200-600 may perform a litlle better than the 100-400mm with the 1.4X TC. The 100-400mm peforms better and faster for AF and is lighter and packs to a much smaller size. I will keep my 100-400mm as I have said before, but will try to sell some equipment and rely on those making the first purchases to help me decide on purchasing the 200-600mm. When released, the A7000/Mini A9/Mini A9II may be a better option at least for me.
