p.52 #1 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
naturephoto1 wrote:
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.
That's what I read as well. But most reviews so far come from people who simply had no opportunity for side by side comparisons. And it simply is not what I see in these RAWs. So far they seem to be the only RAWs available online allowing to make such comparison.
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.
Agreed.
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.
If I had a 100-400, I would certainly keep for now, as the difference between the lenses isn't all that big and the 100-400 has its advantages: size, weight, AF speed, minimum focus distance. Being a birder and not having the 100-400 it looks like a no-brainer to go for the 200-600.
p.52 #2 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
I have the 200-600mm on me now. I also have a 100-400mm and a 1.4x at my disposal. Ill endeavour to do something comparative over the weekend. They are in the country here now and shipping in the next few days so Im sure there will be lots more tests too. Initial personal thoughts are, Id rather have the 100-400mm. The 200-600mm size is not something Id take along in a bag for me so therefore is pretty specialist.
p.52 #4 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Based on the RAW files from the German review, my conclusion is that I wouldn't give one thought about the IQ of the 100-400, 100-400/1.4 or 200-600 in making my decision of which lens to own.
They are so close to each other that it won't affect making a great image one bit.
I believe these are the factors one should look at in deciding to own one or the other or both:
* Size (both deployed and packing): 1-4
* Weight: 1-4
* Max aperture: depends on focal length
* Available focal lengths at given aperture: 2-6 if going for the >400 (which I think anyone buying a 2-6 must be looking for), otherwise 1-4
* MM/MFD: 1-4
* Ease of zooming: 2-6
* Non-extending facilitating better balance?: 2-6 (not sure if this will really be a factor)
* Extra features (OSS Mode 3, 3 range limiter): 2-6
The final variable will be AF. Difficult to test but sounds like it will favour the 1-4 at least in the extreme use cases.
Thanks for the link. For me, the most interesting thing he said in his review is the 200-600's AF is very fast, he felt it was as fast as the 70-200 GM, but the acquisition is not quite as fast as the 400 GM or the 600GM. I have never shot the 70-200GM so I have no idea how fast it is.
p.52 #7 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
kdrk888 wrote:
Thanks for the link. For me, the most interesting thing he said in his review is the 200-600's AF is very fast, he felt it was as fast as the 70-200 GM, but the acquisition is not quite as fast as the 400 GM or the 600GM. I have never shot the 70-200GM so I have no idea how fast it is.
70-200gm has great AF. I would be very happy with that kind of performance.
p.52 #8 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
arbitrage wrote:
Based on the RAW files from the German review, my conclusion is that I wouldn't give one thought about the IQ of the 100-400, 100-400/1.4 or 200-600 in making my decision of which lens to own.
They are so close to each other that it won't affect making a great image one bit.
I believe these are the factors one should look at in deciding to own one or the other or both:
* Size (both deployed and packing): 1-4
* Weight: 1-4
* Max aperture: depends on focal length
* Available focal lengths at given aperture: 2-6 if going for the >400 (which I think anyone buying a 2-6 must be looking for), otherwise 1-4
* MM/MFD: 1-4
* Ease of zooming: 2-6
* Non-extending facilitating better balance?: 2-6 (not sure if this will really be a factor)
* Extra features (OSS Mode 3, 3 range limiter): 2-6
The final variable will be AF. Difficult to test but sounds like it will favour the 1-4 at least in the extreme use cases. ...Show more →
For some of us price is a big factor, these are the prices in my country.
FE 100-400 + 1.4x extender = 3500$
FE 100-400 2900$
FE 200-600 2300$
I'm using A73 so I'm going for the 200-600 but have to wait until middle of october to get one.
p.52 #9 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Fro does the 200-600:
I know he's not everyone's cup of tea, but I appreciate him getting out an using the lens in real-world applications (zoo & baseball game) and providing comparisons to the new 600mm f/4. He also includes a link to some raw files in the description.
p.52 #12 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Got mine as well. So far really happy with it. Sharp wide open, no gain when stopping down. A bit of CA when you look *very* close. Heavy enough that I'll take a tripod when stationary. I posted some test shots at SEL200-600G pixel peeping .
p.52 #19 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
cpe1991 wrote:
Congratulations on your new purchase and thanks for posting! Is this the full shot reduced by about 4x or is it a 100% crop from the centre?
It is cropped about 15% to make it look better and resized to this pixel size in PS.
