p.2 #2 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
Nothing like 1200 f/13 to pick out all the sensor dust ....but damn that is looking pretty nice!!
Way better than I was expecting especially after reading all the pundits. Tomorrow I hope to shoot bare lens on a little dinky bird and really fill the frame.
One thing this lens really helps with is the crop challenged a9's pixel spread.
One of the hawks (we have three currently) is always in that spot so I've shot one over the years with almost all of the 150-600 zooms and remember the abysmal IQ of the Tamron 150-600G2 with teleconverter. The lens itself was fine but couldn't handle the TC. I can see why it is advised to stick with the 1.4TC on the 200600 solely, but from what I'm seeing the 2.0 will work in a pinch......light dependent of course.
p.2 #3 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
AGeoJO wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Joshua I can think of another huge difference, and not the shekels. I can lift one but not the other
p.2 #4 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Joshua I can think of another huge difference, and not the shekels. I can lift one but not the other
Robert, I thought just like you did until I tried one out at that event. Darn, it is not feather-light but seriously, not that much heavier and the weight is distributed more towards the camera.... well, I am convinced that you heard that line before but how it works is surprisingly well. No, I won’t be able to do it over a long period of course but as long as I can do it for approximately a minute, I am happy. That’s it! Even if shooting only at 10FPS, I will get 600 images that way per burst . Normally, the sequence I shoot is between 5 and 20 seconds and I am convinced that you can handhold it for less than 20 seconds, Robert.
p.2 #6 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Would love to hear more on the weight compared to the 100-400mm. Is the 200-600 light enought hand holding comfortably? Maybe taking on an hour hike or something?
p.2 #7 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Alex W wrote:
Would love to hear more on the weight compared to the 100-400mm. Is the 200-600 light enought hand holding comfortably? Maybe taking on an hour hike or something?
I say yes to carry for more than an hour....but all based on your condition eh.
I walked a bit this morning when I got off work.....a9+200-600 in the small of my back.....with no problems or pain.
Yes to surprisingly hand holdable, and I'm strongly averse to weight---and things that pull me down and forward (big F4 lenses) to name one
Standing and holding at the ready=eye to the EVF finger on the shutter. Now that is different. I've learned to plant the lower left corner of the a9 into my should to help support the weight. Arm bent and the whole rig as close to the body as I can. This way I've held ready for 10 min's. Then I have to take a break.
Mileage is a vagary in all of this but really the lens is deceptively light for what it is.
Continuous AF of the a9 (green box with vertical line on each side) got on target quickly and staid on target for 20 shots. Really good light (for here) I'm sure part of it. No teleconverter. And I'd worked all night and missed the first opportunity as he came out of nowhere from down low...so more me than the gears.
Oh, the short throw zoom! Damn nice feature. I'll put up with less pack space (compared to the 100-400) to have it, so fast to go from 200-600mm.
p.2 #10 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
I got mine yesterday and I am returning it today. Nothing wrong with it, just too heavy. I am 72 years of age and with two shoulder surgeries, I can't use this lens unless it is on a tripod. Going backwards for me. Sure I should have played with the size before I purchased, but GAS got me. For now I'll stick with the 100-400 with the 1.4x attached.
p.2 #12 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
All this talk about weight made me look on B&H to see what some of these common lenses weigh.
This was just curiosity on my part, I'm not judging anyone. We all have different wants and needs.
(all weights are in pounds)
Sony 200-600 - ----------------4.65
Sony 100-400 with 1.4 tc - 3.4375
Sony 600 f4 - -------------------6.7
Sigma 150-600c - -------------4.0
Sigma 120-300 f28 - ---------7.5
Sigma MC-11 - ------------------0.7
Canon 500 f4 II - ---------------7.0
Canon 2x tc - -------------------0.7
So, me looking at this, it seems like the 100-400 with the 1.4 tc is about a 20 oz bottle of Coke lighter than the 200-600.
For me, at this time, that wouldn't be a big thing.
My lens of choice for years was the Sigma 120-300 with a 2x tc, a little over 8 pounds.
I should add that I don't really go hiking either.
I drive to a spot walk maybe a half mile in, then a half mile back out.
p.2 #13 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
AGeoJO wrote:
Robert, I thought just like you did until I tried one out at that event. Darn, it is not feather-light but seriously, not that much heavier and the weight is distributed more towards the camera.... well, I am convinced that you heard that line before but how it works is surprisingly well. No, I won’t be able to do it over a long period of course but as long as I can do it for approximately a minute, I am happy. That’s it! Even if shooting only at 10FPS, I will get 600 images that way per burst . Normally, the sequence I shoot is between 5 and 20 seconds and I am convinced that you can handhold it for less than 20 seconds, Robert.
I had a chance to hand hold my buddy's 600mm GM briefly this morning, it FEELS a lot lighter than I thought, definitely manageable for several minutes.
p.2 #15 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
I just came back from a local burrowing owl site and here are sequential images I took there using this lens. Within 5 minutes after I got there the owl that just caught a June bug flew towards the burrow. I got it in the "cross hair" and fired away. I was stoked. He made several more "sorties" and I came home to view the images.
I had another lens that I played with. And that wasn't a good idea. While I was changing the gear back and forth, I could have missed some good shooting opportunities. Oh, well.
First, I am thrilled to see the images at 600mm at wide open. The sharpness is superb. So, in that respect the lens delivers, for sure. Now, the AF performance. Well, here is the first impression of the AF; the owl in the first eleven images was in perfect focus but the subsequent 3 were out of focus and the last one was back in focus although not quite perfectly in focus... yet. I used the Zone AF that I trusted on my A9 for that. It seemed that the setup tried to regain focus and it did but it was at the end of the sequence and then the owl landed already. I got a few images from a few more burst but the vegetation there not only obstructed the view and yes, the AF as well. So, this is my first impression and I will be going out for more to render a more definite impression and for sure, I don't want to speculate whether the GM 100-400mm plus 1.4X TC is sharper or better in AF at this point.
Here are images of a sequence although it doesn't show much of the AF performance. The owl landed on the branch near the burrow and a second later it hopped and flew into the burrow. Please note that the images were edited using LR only and that they were cropped.
p.2 #18 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
billsnature wrote:
Here is 200-600mm with 1.4X on the A7 III 1 Hummer and a few clearwings
Nice shots Bill. Looks like the 1.4TC will be a great option on this lens when the light allows...I'm sure it will be better than the 2x on the 100-400 to get to 800mm. Your BeeBalm looks as bad as mine does now
p.2 #19 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
AGeoJO wrote:
I just came back from a local burrowing owl site and here are sequential images I took there using this lens. Within 5 minutes after I got there the owl that just caught a June bug flew towards the burrow. I got it in the "cross hair" and fired away. I was stoked. He made several more "sorties" and I came home to view the images.
I had another lens that I played with. And that wasn't a good idea. While I was changing the gear back and forth, I could have missed some good shooting opportunities. Oh, well.
First, I am thrilled to see the images at 600mm at wide open. The sharpness is superb. So, in that respect the lens delivers, for sure. Now, the AF performance. Well, here is the first impression of the AF; the owl in the first eleven images was in perfect focus but the subsequent 3 were out of focus and the last one was back in focus although not quite perfectly in focus... yet. I used the Zone AF that I trusted on my A9 for that. It seemed that the setup tried to regain focus and it did but it was at the end of the sequence and then the owl landed already. I got a few images from a few more burst but the vegetation there not only obstructed the view and yes, the AF as well. So, this is my first impression and I will be going out for more to render a more definite impression and for sure, I don't want to speculate whether the GM 100-400mm plus 1.4X TC is sharper or better in AF at this point.
Here are images of a sequence although it doesn't show much of the AF performance. The owl landed on the branch near the burrow and a second later it hopped and flew into the burrow. Please note that the images were edited using LR only and that they were cropped....Show more →
Thanks for the early report Joshua. Cool shots. Did you have the 600/4 out there also?
p.2 #20 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
Thanks for the early report Joshua. Cool shots. Did you have the 600/4 out there also?
Thank you, Geoff! And yes, I did. That’s why I fumbled around with my gear and may have missed a few good opportunities. If you read my post on the first page of this thread about the difference between the 2 lenses, this outing confirmed it again. I will go out to a different location tomorrow morning. And I will post my impression from the second location here again. To reiterate though, I am impressed with the IQ this zoom lens generates.
....but damn that is looking pretty nice!!
. Normally, the sequence I shoot is between 5 and 20 seconds and I am convinced that you can handhold it for less than 20 seconds, Robert. 
