p.212 #1 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Photo cross posted in the Sony FE Image Thread and taken at 11:40 AM.
Looking at a Great Blue Heron in Breeding Plumage.
Cropped mainly from left and right, tripod mounted 200-600mm G set to 600mm and Sony A7rIII; silent shutter.
ISO 400, f6.3, 1/2500 second.
December 6, 2020
Along Lake Apopka Wildlife Drive, Apopka, FL.
p.212 #2 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Over a foot of snow in the past five days and sub-zero temperatures in northern Illinois have the ever-moving American Tree Sparrows foraging for food near our bird feeder.
p.212 #7 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Question for y'all: Suppose you're shooting birds that are close enough that the 200-600 is adequate without a teleconverter. Now suppose you also had a 1.4TC and a 100-400 GM lens.
Which would be better to use? The bare 200-600, or the 100-400 w/1.4TC? It seems like I've read some things that make it sound like even though the 100-400 is a GM and the 200-600 is a G, it would likely be best to just use the 200-600 in that case. That the 200-600 is that good. Or the 100-400 is not THAT good. Whichever way you choose to look at it.
Now suppose the birds were even closer and you were not zooming your 200-600 past 400. And suppose you had a 1.4TC and a 70-200 GM. Which would better to use there? I'm kind of thinking that in that scenario, you'd probably be better off using the 70-200 and 1.4TC. Yes?
p.212 #8 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
stuartv wrote:
Question for y'all: Suppose you're shooting birds that are close enough that the 200-600 is adequate without a teleconverter. Now suppose you also had a 1.4TC and a 100-400 GM lens.
Which would be better to use? The bare 200-600, or the 100-400 w/1.4TC? It seems like I've read some things that make it sound like even though the 100-400 is a GM and the 200-600 is a G, it would likely be best to just use the 200-600 in that case. That the 200-600 is that good. Or the 100-400 is not THAT good. Whichever way you choose to look at it....Show more →
This has be tested ad nauseam. The 200-600 is optically better than the 100-400 with the TC1.4 installed. Difference is rather noticeable when cropping (or zooming in). At 400mm (and no TC) they are very close to each other, with the GM maybe a hint better (and with somewhat faster AF). The culprit is the TC. It is optically good, but not nearly as good as the naked lenses. I only use the TC when cropping would leave me with too few pixels on the bird.
Now suppose the birds were even closer and you were not zooming your 200-600 past 400. And suppose you had a 1.4TC and a 70-200 GM. Which would better to use there? I'm kind of thinking that in that scenario, you'd probably be better off using the 70-200 and 1.4TC. Yes?
Probably not. While I haven't tested that combination, I'd expect a similar result with the TC. With TC there is much more glass between the sensor and the target and no glass is optically perfect. It would sport a faster aperture, though. And if you already have the shorter lens, the TC is much cheaper than another lens.
p.212 #9 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Daran wrote:
This has be tested ad nauseam. The 200-600 is optically better than the 100-400 with the TC1.4 installed. Difference is rather noticeable when cropping (or zooming in). At 400mm (and no TC) they are very close to each other, with the GM maybe a hint better (and with somewhat faster AF). The culprit is the TC. It is optically good, but not nearly as good as the naked lenses. I only use the TC when cropping would leave me with too few pixels on the bird.
Probably not. While I haven't tested that combination, I'd expect a similar result with the TC. With TC there is much more glass between the sensor and the target and no glass is optically perfect. It would sport a faster aperture, though. And if you already have the shorter lens, the TC is much cheaper than another lens. ...Show more →
Thanks. Good info.
I already have the 200-600 and the 1.4TC, so that is not really a factor.
I am debating buying the 70-200 and/or the 100-400. It sounds like, with already having what I have, I should probably get the 70-200 and not bother with the 100-400. But, only ever use the TC when the 200-600 is not long enough on its own.
I was thinking about waiting and hoping that Sigma will come out with a 70-200 ART lens for Sony. But, then I saw that the TC I have will work with the 70-200 and (presumably) will not work with any Sigma lens. My thought was that that made it kind of a no-brainer to get the Sony 70-200. So I would have the option of using the TC with it, if I ever wanted to. But now you have me thinking about that. As in, if I'm never going to use the TC with anything except the 200-600, then maybe I SHOULD wait to see if Sigma comes out with a quality 70-200.
p.212 #10 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Daran wrote:
This has be tested ad nauseam. The 200-600 is optically better than the 100-400 with the TC1.4 installed. Difference is rather noticeable when cropping (or zooming in). At 400mm (and no TC) they are very close to each other, with the GM maybe a hint better (and with somewhat faster AF). The culprit is the TC. It is optically good, but not nearly as good as the naked lenses. I only use the TC when cropping would leave me with too few pixels on the bird.
This is a cropped image using an a9 with the 100-400 + TC1.4 - Just curious but would you expect the 200-600 to be noticeably better?
p.212 #11 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
stuartv wrote:
Thanks. Good info.
I already have the 200-600 and the 1.4TC, so that is not really a factor.
I am debating buying the 70-200 and/or the 100-400. It sounds like, with already having what I have, I should probably get the 70-200 and not bother with the 100-400. But, only ever use the TC when the 200-600 is not long enough on its own.
I was thinking about waiting and hoping that Sigma will come out with a 70-200 ART lens for Sony. But, then I saw that the TC I have will work with the 70-200 and (presumably) will not work with any Sigma lens. My thought was that that made it kind of a no-brainer to get the Sony 70-200. So I would have the option of using the TC with it, if I ever wanted to. But now you have me thinking about that. As in, if I'm never going to use the TC with anything except the 200-600, then maybe I SHOULD wait to see if Sigma comes out with a quality 70-200....Show more →
If you already have the 200-600, adding the 100-400 gives you much better close focus. Max magnification is 0.35x for the 100-400, and that is the only reason bought the GM. If I ever get to travel again, my intended use is tree frogs in Costa Rica. Shac's photo above is also a great example.
p.212 #12 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
shac wrote:
Daran wrote:
This has be tested ad nauseam. The 200-600 is optically better than the 100-400 with the TC1.4 installed. Difference is rather noticeable when cropping (or zooming in). At 400mm (and no TC) they are very close to each other, with the GM maybe a hint better (and with somewhat faster AF). The culprit is the TC. It is optically good, but not nearly as good as the naked lenses. I only use the TC when cropping would leave me with too few pixels on the bird.
This is a cropped image using an a9 with the 100-400 + TC1.4 - Just curious but would you expect the 200-600 to be noticeably better?
You are using a low res body where the degradation due to TC has much less impact. Additionally you present a JPEG that has even less resolution. So no, the TC probably did not reduce the IQ of this JPEG in a material way.
Using a TC generally doesn't hurt when you are at a low resolution (whether due to the low res sensor or due to sub-sampling after the fact). So e.g. when not cropping, when recording video or when presenting low resolution images on the internet. In those cases the deviation from best IQ is practically invisible. It will matter when using high resolution sensors and cropping the resulting images as is common when birding.
PS: Nice shot.
[EDIT]
Just noticed that I misread your question. The 200-600 has a MFD of 2.5 meters and is therefore *much* less capable of macro shots than the 100-400 with an MFD of only 1 meter.
p.212 #13 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
stuartv wrote:
Thanks. Good info.
I already have the 200-600 and the 1.4TC, so that is not really a factor.
I am debating buying the 70-200 and/or the 100-400. It sounds like, with already having what I have, I should probably get the 70-200 and not bother with the 100-400. But, only ever use the TC when the 200-600 is not long enough on its own.
I was thinking about waiting and hoping that Sigma will come out with a 70-200 ART lens for Sony. But, then I saw that the TC I have will work with the 70-200 and (presumably) will not work with any Sigma lens. My thought was that that made it kind of a no-brainer to get the Sony 70-200. So I would have the option of using the TC with it, if I ever wanted to. But now you have me thinking about that. As in, if I'm never going to use the TC with anything except the 200-600, then maybe I SHOULD wait to see if Sigma comes out with a quality 70-200....Show more →
It really depends on what you want to shoot with those lenses. For portraits the 100-400 would be practically useless. For birds a 70-200 has little application. For macro work the 100-400 is better, but the much cheaper 90G would beat them both. Etc.
p.212 #14 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Photo cross posted in the Sony FE Image Thread and taken at 10:51 AM.
Looking at a Great Egret in breeding plumage.
Cropped, tripod mounted 200-600mm G set to 600mm and Sony A7rIII; silent shutter.
ISO 100, f6.3, 1/1000 second.
January 6, 2020
At Gatorland, Orlando or Kissimmee, FL.
