AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
kdrk888 wrote:
I tried to do a brick wall comparison between the 100-400 (and +1.4 TC) vs the 200-600 today but messed up the exposure. The 200-600 is really sharp, the 100-400 doesn't have anything on the 200-600 in terms of sharpness. I don't know about the AF yet.
I compared the 200-600mm at the long end with the prime lens. I couldn’t tell much of a difference. The difference, if any, would not matter much under real life shooting conditions, for sure. Where it matters more is in the ability to isolate the target of the prime lens. The shallower depth-of-field at f/4 compared to that of f/6.3 plays a role in the rendition. Although the target is only marginally or barely any "sharper" for lack of a better word but it does appear sharper since the background is rendered softer due to the shallower depth-of-field. In other words, the bokeh of the 200-600mm zoom at the same 600mm is noticeably busier.
In addition, and this is what Sony was touting at the event presentation I attended, the difference in the AF performance between the two is where the rubber (or your money) meets the asphalt. Of course, it applies more to situations of fast-paced actions, like birds in flight, etc. What good is the sharpness if the target is slightly out of focus since the lens cannot keep up? Don't get me wrong, the 200-600 is no slouch in the AF performance but yet, the prime lens has a better AF system due to the 2 XD (extreme dynamic) linear motors, providing faster, more precise AF and more reliable tracking. If I think it is easy to understand the difference between the 2 lenses in that aspect, if we use the difference in the AF performance between that of the A9 and that of the A7r III as an analogy.
|
. 
