p.9 #2 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
I've been looking at these pictures closely. Assuming this is basically the final form (minus the front element and hood), I believe most of what we need to know about this lens is already depicted in the shape and design of what is there and what we can infer is not there.
Re: Is this an internally or externally zooming lens?
I believe this is an internally zooming lens. I know others have disagreed with me. And I could still easily be wrong; I'll get to that. But here's my case for internal.
Look at the shape of widest part of the barrel. I think some, upon first glance, assume this part of the lens "prototype" is a lens hood; it isn't. Now look at the picture looking down the top of the barrel. It reveals ridges along the circumference of the bevel. This indicates that there will be something attached to it. Once whatever attaches to this end is attached it will effectively lengthen the lens. I would guess there will be a front element with some rubberized edging that would attach to this point. This will likely add a few centimeters to the total length of the final design of the lens. So for those saying this lens isn't long enough to be an internally zooming lens I offer this bit of conjecture.
Now consider the shape of the "prototype." Where would the lens extend from? From the top of the barrel? I don't see why the barrel would be shaped this way if a telescoping piece were to extend out beyond the top piece since it has this outward flange. Look at the 100-400. It's a tube. It doesn't have increasingly wider segments leading to the end of the barrel.
Could it extend from between the edge of the zoom ring and the top of the barrel of the "prototype"? It could. This would be consistent with the design architecture of the Sigma and Tamron super tele zooms in this range. But I ask where is the gap? There's no visual clue that this is where the barrel would extend. Again if you look at the design language of the other telescoping zooms Sony makes, the 100-400 and 70-300, you'll see in both cases there are gaps between where the fixed parts of the barrels end and the zooming (extending) parts begin. This of course doesn't rule out that the "prototype" isn't finished, but it looks awfully finished to me. To the point where it has a lens badge with consistent labeling.
Lastly, there is no tension ring for the zoom. Nor do I see any zoom lock.
TL: DR I think there's a reasonable chance that this lens is an internal zoom. And that my friends would be this lens' killer app.
p.9 #3 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Just a quick comment. Many of you are talking about using this with a TC. Keep in mind that if this is real and truly a G lens, no G lens to date has been able to accept a Sony TC. Only select GM glass - the 70-200, 100-400, and 400. It's questionable whether Sony would actually make this lens with the ability to use one of their TC's (they didn't even do that with their 135GM). I wouldn't bet on this having such ability.
p.9 #5 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
mike1812 wrote:
Just a quick comment. Many of you are talking about using this with a TC. Keep in mind that if this is real and truly a G lens, no G lens to date has been able to accept a Sony TC. Only select GM glass - the 70-200, 100-400, and 400. It's questionable whether Sony would actually make this lens with the ability to use one of their TC's (they didn't even do that with their 135GM). I wouldn't bet on this having such ability.
I certainly don't hope that Sony would be that narrow-minded (or stupid ) not to let the TC, at least the 1.4X TC work with that lens. The 2X TC may not work as well since the effective aperture would be too small to make it effective, at least on some cameras. That's another great way to sell a lot of TCs at $500+ a pop.
p.9 #7 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
I think there are more and more indications that it *is* internal zooming. If it's a G lens instead of a GM I'm really curious what the price will be. Also curious about Tamron's upcoming super-tele(?) for FE mount. I'd really like something long for when I go out west to do wildlife stuff; but to be honest, if it's over $1,300 it's really not worth it to me [counting used as well], and if it's not native, I don't really want to deal with it (esp. since I'm locked into an A7II till I'm out of grad school unless I want to forego a lens purchase; I *almost* have a complete kit now).
p.9 #8 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
arbitrage wrote:
A mockup size comparison posted on SAR...not sure how accurate this is...if the thing is that long and extends further, I'll just take the 400GM instead I realize these are totally different category of lenses. If that is internal zoom then the size is maybe worth it. https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/size-comparison-between-the-200-600mm-fe-and-the-100-400mm-gm/
Man, this thing looks long and it doesn't look like it could retract like the Sigmas or the Tamrons. So even when you are not using it you still need a long bag to carry it. Hopefully we will find out in a few days.
p.9 #9 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
It's obvious that the picture of 200-600 is taken with a WA lens from close up so distortion is quite severe, and dimensions could be much smaller than the comparison infer.
p.9 #11 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
fadeslayer wrote:
It's obvious that the picture of 200-600 is taken with a WA lens from close up so distortion is quite severe, and dimensions could be much smaller than the comparison infer.
Talking about WA distortion, I have a a little story I want to share even though it's off the topic. I know a couple who moved to our area about a year ago from S. Dakota. They bought a house unseen, just based on their research on the school district and the online pictures. They found out that the house is actually a LOT smaller than what the online pictures showed. Obviously the pictures were taken with UWA. I can't say they are stupid because the husband has a Ph.D. in science...
p.9 #12 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
fadeslayer wrote:
It's obvious that the picture of 200-600 is taken with a WA lens from close up so distortion is quite severe, and dimensions could be much smaller than the comparison infer.
Especially considering how large the focus hold button looks compared to the 100-400.
p.9 #13 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
Does no one read specs anymore? Not sure how you could mislead a sqft reading outside of including things that shouldn’t be on there etc.
kdrk888 wrote:
Talking about WA distortion, I have a a little story I want to share even though it's off the topic. I know a couple who moved to our area about a year ago from S. Dakota. They bought a house unseen, just based on their research on the school district and the online pictures. They found out that the house is actually a LOT smaller than what the online pictures showed. Obviously the pictures were taken with UWA. I can't say they are stupid because the husband has a Ph.D. in science...
p.9 #14 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
It seems quite likely that it’ll be internal zoom. In the photo it’s set to 600mm. Unless there’s a whole extending unit missing, seems like that’s a pretty solid indication
p.9 #15 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
arbitrage wrote:
A mockup size comparison posted on SAR...not sure how accurate this is...if the thing is that long and extends further, I'll just take the 400GM instead I realize these are totally different category of lenses. If that is internal zoom then the size is maybe worth it. https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/size-comparison-between-the-200-600mm-fe-and-the-100-400mm-gm/
The “new” and to be announced lens is definitely longer than the GM 100-400mm but it is not as long as the comparison image relative to the others. The image of that lens was taken from not exactly perpendicular to the lens center but skewed. You can see that from the circumference of the lens is not straight but bulging out quite a bit, giving you the impression that the length is longer. Check out the image of the other lens; the circumference of all of them is straight and not bulging.
Again, yes, it is a longish lens but not as long as that comparison image leads you to believe, in other words. Does it make sense?
p.9 #19 · Pre-order: Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS ($1,998)
mitesh wrote:
I don’t know how I feel about this potentially new lens. I mean, I could slap a 1.4x on my 100-400 GM and have a 140-560/6.3-8. I give up a few mm on the long end and 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop from the wide to telephoto end of the focal length range, compared to the rumored new lens. I realize that can have an impact on the final image, but I’m wondering if it makes enough of a difference to warrant the expenditure on a second lens that has significant overlap with one I already have.
Don’t mind me, though. I’m just bitter because I really wanted a 600/4 GM 😁. For a lot of people, especially those who don’t own a 100-400 GM and wants something with this focal length flexibility and reach, it looks like a great option to consider. ...Show more →
Don't forget that instead of a max of 560mm with the 1.4x TC you'd already be getting up to 600mm without the need for a teleconverter which would rob your images of sharpness to a degree and hurt cropability.
To me it seems like a zoom with these focal lengths would be more for people who don't already own the 100-400 (or are willing to sell their copy). Might pair very well with the 70-200 f4 or the 70-300 G with some overlap.
) not to let the TC, at least the 1.4X TC work with that lens. The 2X TC may not work as well since the effective aperture would be too small to make it effective, at least on some cameras. That's another great way to sell a lot of TCs at $500+ a pop.
I realize these are totally different category of lenses. If that is internal zoom then the size is maybe worth it. 