To make it short, the lens exceed all of my expectation. It delivers what it design for. It is the lightest on it class compare to Canon/Nikon. It is not cheap but it worth every cents.
I admit that i have an interest to buy this lens in the future. Together with a a9 successor. But TBH and no offense intended, these images above don't look convincing to me. When examining them closely i am missing detail. The back wing in #1 and #2 seem to have more detail than the head, but the entire image is missing sharpness for a prime to me. #3 the head is OOF. The added 2x tc in the later shots don't seem to soften the image at all like mentioned before so that is good.
therealthings wrote:
When examining them closely i am missing detail. The back wing in #1 and #2 seem to have more detail than the head, but the entire image is missing sharpness for a prime to me. #3 the head is OOF.
therealthings wrote:
I admit that i have an interest to buy this lens in the future. Together with a a9 successor. But TBH and no offense intended, these images above don't look convincing to me. When examining them closely i am missing detail. The back wing in #1 and #2 seem to have more detail than the head, but the entire image is missing sharpness for a prime to me. #3 the head is OOF. The added 2x tc in the later shots don't seem to soften the image at all like mentioned before so that is good.
Since when does focus plane being off of ideal (which I agree is probably true in the ones you mention, although hard to say at this resolution) equate to lens sharpness performance? Also judging sharpness on a moving peregrine probably isn't the best test. The 1200mm Osprey looks about as sharp as one could get out of any super tele out there so I don't think the bare lens will have sharpness issues. The BO looks tack sharp to me.
arbitrage wrote:
Since when does focus plane being off of ideal (which I agree is probably true in the ones you mention, although hard to say at this resolution) equate to lens sharpness performance?
It does not, but i'm not only criticizing lens sharpness here. You know, and this has been discussed before, that shooting longer lenses especially with tracking smaller targets (moving towards you) with another brand often result in focus on parts behind the desired point of focus (and inconsistent results). This is not a critique on the OP, nor on the images he posted, but it seems like a common issue not only with that other brand, where i'd hoped it to be resolved with the so called 'improved AF system' on the a9, compared to e.g. the 1dxII. Now the marketing machine comes in at full swing on the 600 claiming it to have faster focus motors to aid in faster tracking, i'm starting to doubt that it will really make a difference.
arbitrage wrote:
Also judging sharpness on a moving peregrine probably isn't the best test.
I think if he dialed up the shutter speed we know for sure.
arbitrage wrote:
The 1200mm Osprey looks about as sharp as one could get out of any super tele out there so I don't think the bare lens will have sharpness issues. The BO looks tack sharp to me.
The osprey looks ok on my large monitor, though i think there is missing some detail. Not sure if there was any noise removal (or no sharpness) applied or if they are 100% crops. That could change my point of view.
I do believe that Alex knows what he saw as he has been testing lenses like no other lately, but to me his verdict above the images, don't show in these images for me TBH.
Yes, I agree that FM uploads are not the best quality when you are trying to judge the best quality. Also conditions of many kinds significantly affect UltraTele field results. Frankly, I see these as extraordinary captures made possible by fine equipment but just possibly not the best way to test optical quality.
One thing I would value is the photographer’s opinion of how the A9/600GM system compares to whatever he shot before. As equipment improves we try for more difficult captures so the tendency is to always be shooting “just good enough” equipment.
I can say this however. I shot Nikon’s best for low light action-their-D5 and the A9 is much better-especially with FW 5.0. I owned both the Nikon and Canon 400mm F2.8 lenses and find that the Sony 400GM is significantly better with the 2.0 TC. Just possibly as good IQ as field conditions will allow.
The 400GM works for me also as a 560 F4.0 and 800mm F5.6. Since I don’t do BIF I don’t need 1600mm F8.0 and so find the 400GM (with TCs) more versatile and compact than the 600GM. I would like to see if other shooters share my opinion of TC use with both the 400GM and 600GM.
I don't know what to make of test images like these. They are all nice images but as "test images" hard to interpret. I will say that the third peregrine shot shows focus lag that I was hoping would not be present. I doubt that Alex Phan meant for them to be test images. His assessment that it exceeds his expectations is good news. That's basically the same conclusion I had about the A9+400/2.8 combination and I am hoping to see with the A9+600/4. Regardless, Alex Phan is making the hoi polloi jealous that he gets delivery of a 600/4 in June and the rest of us have to wait until August (or later).
ericbrown wrote:
Hi Dave - Can you explain what you mean when you say 'focus lag'?
The Falcon is moving toward the camera. It appears to me that the plane of focus is somewhat behind the front of the subject. By focus lag I mean the camera+lens is not keeping up with the movement of the subject. This image is hardly definitive but as I said I was hoping that I would not see indications of this in a set of images that were selected to demonstrate beyond expectations performance. I have seen this problem in images I have taken with Canon camera+lens combinations, and with the Sony A9+400/2.8, but much more rarely. It is no great surprise to see a small lag. I am still expecting to see with the A9+600/4 the excellent performance I saw with the A9+400/2.8. I don't expect perfection.
Yes, shot 3 is not tack sharp. Even with all the tech out there now I don't think most people have a real appreciation of how difficult this is. It requires a lot of tech, skill/technique, study and some luck. Anyone expecting tack sharp eyes and perfectly blurred backgrounds is not being realistic. On the images that don't "pop"... do we know if these were .jpg or raw? I see that Alex likes to shoot in Jpg mode on the A9 and combine that with CIZ.
dclark wrote:
The Falcon is moving toward the camera. It appears to me that the plane of focus is somewhat behind the front of the subject. By focus lag I mean the camera+lens is not keeping up with the movement of the subject. This image is hardly definitive but as I said I was hoping that I would not see indications of this in a set of images that were selected to demonstrate beyond expectations performance. I have seen this problem in images I have taken with Canon camera+lens combinations, and with the Sony A9+400/2.8, but much more rarely. It is no great surprise to see a small lag. I am still expecting to see with the A9+600/4 the excellent performance I saw with the A9+400/2.8. I don't expect perfection.
it seem like the image is enlarged when display here. I'm viewing it on my 38" monitor now. Click on the image will bring it back down to the more like the size it is.
