p.4 #1 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Packout request- Mindshift Backlite 18L
Top row Voigtlander FE 40/1.2, Zony 55/1.8, Sony 24/1.4GM, A7Riii+24-105
Bottom Row a9+200600G. With hood reversed will tightly allow 2.0TC attached.
Grip removed from A7Riii. I usually travel with grips on all to delay battery irritation but
I know some don't like them.
p.4 #2 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
I just came back from another birding spot for further evaluation of this lens. The findings on the second day now confirm basically what I noticed at a different location. This lens is impressively sharp at wide open and at the longest end. It certainly delivers a very impressive performance at that price category. There are occasions that I had to zoom out since I got a first row seat and yes, as expected, the lens performs just fine at a shorter FL. I am including two images to display the performance here at different FL. Both images were just edited using LR. I am convinced it would have looked better had I done more editing using PS but that's not the idea here.
There was an occasion where I could take the adult peregrines in flight and this is somewhat of a mix bag, similar to what I got preciously when shooting burrowing owls. Like before, I use the Zone AF with Tracking at 10FPS. The total number I got from this sequence is 47. Out of those, 32 were critically sharp, 9 were sharp but if enlarged they showed a slight softness (not visible for web display) and a little bit of local sharpness adjustment in PP will make them look sharp. And here is the not so good news, 6 of them were blurry. I could see the AF flickering right on the viewfinder of my AP ON the falcon, so, that's not the issue of the A9 not being able to track and AF. We can interpret how or whatever we want but these are my findings. It is what it is for me, in other words. Falcons are one of the faster flying birds and they flew quite away from me. To a certain degree, they were easier for the setup to track. I am including a single image (edited in LR only) of a single (cropped) frame that is in critical focus.
In general though, I am very pleased with my findings, considering that this is not GM lens and not made to be able to track every frame at this price point. The zooming range is excellent and I did quite a bit of tracking with my 100-400mm GM lens plus 1.4X TC. Either the GM performs slightly better or approximately on par with this lens. But the circumstances are not the same though and in real life, they never are.
Enjoy yours and post your findings/images here,
Joshua
p.4 #3 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Joshua you just sold many many lenses and converted many to Sony. Just think, a7iii+200600. Less than $4K for primo wildlife rig. Hard to do in other systems and retain the huge advantage of mirrorless.
Of course we need to see a7iii results but I bet they will be find.
p.4 #4 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Packout request- Mindshift Backlite 18L
Top row Voigtlander FE 40/1.2, Zony 55/1.8, Sony 24/1.4GM, A7Riii+24-105
Bottom Row a9+200600G. With hood reversed will tightly allow 2.0TC attached.
Grip removed from A7Riii. I usually travel with grips on all to delay battery irritation but
I know some don't like them.
Thank you Robert! A couple shots of humming birds from this morning. I have photographed hummers for only a few times and this is the first time I photographed them feeding on flowers other than feeders. A lot to learn of course. These are very very heavily cropped, hence the noise. An A7RIV would have been nice for cropping.
p.4 #5 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Another shot of little Ollie today to check the sharpness on this lens. Full image and then 100% crop. The focus on the A7RIII is decent but not super fast. It will be interesting to see how my forthcoming A7RIV will focus. I need to get out somewhere to do some bird photography and soon!
p.4 #6 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Very impressive shots Joshua.
Robert: that camera backpack must weigh about 20 lbs with those contents? Any side pockets for accessories like filters, blower brush, etc?
p.4 #7 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Dennis as pictured 18 pounds. With the One Mix 3s+4 extra FZ100 batteries+1x20,000mAH USB brick+blower/swabs/Aero Eclipse just a hair over 20 pounds. All these extras in the front pocket of the Mindshift 18L along with a 67mm filter pack (for the Tam 17-28,Tam28-75).
Which is my weight limit for the beach landing in the dinky little plane.
I'll have a RX100vi in my shirt pocket too.
The Backlite 18L does have side pocket on each side but no need for me to put anything in them.
p.4 #8 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Here's a quick comparison using the A7III. Both images are f/9. The image on the left was taken with my Canon 600mm II w/1.4x TC and the right image is with the 200-600mm w/1.4x TC. The 200-600mm lens @ 600mm is probably not 600mm but 560-580mm. Nonetheless, I cropped (slightly) both images to 400 dpi in an 8" x 10" format and compared their sharpness. The 200-600mm image needed to be cropped a bit more to match the exact framing of the Canon.
Compared, the sharpness is about the same with the Sony 200-600mm lens with the 1.4x being ever so slightly sharper. These images were taken indoors in a controlled environment at a distance of about 20'.
p.4 #9 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
What Canon body did you use for the feather photos? Could the slightly better sharpness of the Sony be attributed more megapixels of the Sony 7iii?
Great idea for the test by the way...How does the 600mm F4 II without TC compare to the Sony 200-600 F6.3 at 600mm?
Looks like sharpness is not an issue at the long end...focus acquisition (how does the Canon 600 II compare to the Sony) is just as interesting a topic.
p.4 #10 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Joshua you just sold many many lenses and converted many to Sony. Just think, a7iii+200600. Less than $4K for primo wildlife rig. Hard to do in other systems and retain the huge advantage of mirrorless.
Of course we need to see a7iii results but I bet they will be find.
Robert, this lens is truly remarkable for the price. I do not have the A7 III and as such, I am sure not sure how well this lens will perform on that body. If it does, then you are absolutely correct. However, I got the hunch that a new APS-C is about to be introduced and combined with that body, the combo will be a superb and inexpensive birding kit.
dalite wrote:
Very impressive shots Joshua.
Robert: that camera backpack must weigh about 20 lbs with those contents? Any side pockets for accessories like filters, blower brush, etc?
Thank you very much, Dennis!
AJay wrote:
Here's a quick comparison using the A7III. Both images are f/9. The image on the left was taken with my Canon 600mm II w/1.4x TC and the right image is with the 200-600mm w/1.4x TC. The 200-600mm lens @ 600mm is probably not 600mm but 560-580mm. Nonetheless, I cropped (slightly) both images to 400 dpi in an 8" x 10" format and compared their sharpness. The 200-600mm image needed to be cropped a bit more to match the exact framing of the Canon.
Compared, the sharpness is about the same with the Sony 200-600mm lens with the 1.4x being ever so slightly sharper. These images were taken indoors in a controlled environment at a distance of about 20'. ...Show more →
Alan, yes, the 200-600mm is a sharp lens alright. I believe, and you may not agree with me here, the difference you see there is attributed more to the difference in exposure as rendered. What I meant is, the image taken with the 200-600mm lens is darker and that renders the image to appear sharper.
I compared the 200-600mm lens at the long end with the prime GM 600mm without changing the position of my tripod and the magnification is definitely larger. I agree with you that the actual long end of the 200-600mm is shorter than 600mm, at least relative to that of the prime GM 600mm lens. Not the first zoom lens that shows that behavior nor it is the last.
p.4 #11 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
rdcny wrote:
What Canon body did you use for the feather photos? Could the slightly better sharpness of the Sony be attributed more megapixels of the Sony 7iii?
Great idea for the test by the way...How does the 600mm F4 II without TC compare to the Sony 200-600 F6.3 at 600mm?
Looks like sharpness is not an issue at the long end...focus acquisition (how does the Canon 600 II compare to the Sony) is just as interesting a topic.
I used the A7III for both images. With the Canon 600mm II I used the MC-11 adapter.
At 600mm the difference is less...which means you really, really have to look hard.
p.4 #12 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Alan, yes, the 200-600mm is a sharp lens alright. I believe, and you may not agree with me here, the difference you see there is attributed more to the difference in exposure as rendered. What I meant is, the image taken with the 200-600mm lens is darker and that renders the image to appear sharper.
The difference is so small, it really doesn't matter and yes, the Canon image rendered slightly brighter with the exact same settings using the A7III.
p.4 #13 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
AJay wrote:
The difference is so small, it really doesn't matter and yes, the Canon image rendered slightly brighter with the exact same settings using the A7III.
Understood - the Canon 600mm f/4 plus the 1.4X TC would make the effective aperture f/5.6 and the aperture of the Sony 200-600 at 600mm is f/6.3. Since you took both images using the exact same settings of the A7 III, then yes, it makes sense that the image taken with the Canon lens is brighter a tad since the Canon setup did let ⅓ to ½-stop more light in.
p.4 #15 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
AGeoJO wrote:
Understood - the Canon 600mm f/4 plus the 1.4X TC would make the effective aperture f/5.6 and the aperture of the Sony 200-600 at 600mm is f/6.3. Since you took both images using the exact same settings of the A7 III, then yes, it makes sense that the image taken with the Canon lens is brighter a tad since the Canon setup did let ⅓ to ½-stop more light in.
I think he had the 1.4 on the 200-600 so it would have been f/9. But sounds like he equalized the settings. Not sure if they were equalized by stopping down the Canon or using a slower SS on the Sony.
Regardless, I'm surprised how close they look. The difference in exposure is likely due to a darker t-stop on the Sony zoom if the exposure was equalized.
p.4 #17 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
So far it seems pretty good - very solidly built (better than the 100-400 GM) but the AF accuracy suffers a bit on the A7R III in lower light levels (mostly shooting around ISO 3200 in the shade this afternoon).
I'm not quite prepared to say it's sharper than the Fuji XF 100-400mm zoom, though... although the current Sony bodies obviously have a big advantage in the high ISO noise department. Unfortunately I had to return my Fuji 100-400 so I don't have one on had for a side-by-side comparison.
p.4 #18 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
I think he had the 1.4 on the 200-600 so it would have been f/9. But sounds like he equalized the settings. Not sure if they were equalized by stopping down the Canon or using a slower SS on the Sony.
Regardless, I'm surprised how close they look. The difference in exposure is likely due to a darker t-stop on the Sony zoom if the exposure was equalized.
Yes, a 1.4X TC was used on both lenses, reducing the effective aperture by the same factor. And I messed up in saying that the difference in effective aperture was ½ or ⅓-stop. I should have said that difference was more like 1½ or 1⅓-stop instead. Alan also specified that he used the same setting of the A7 III but I am not sure whether he ended up doing something equalize the actual exposure to compensate for the difference. But really, not that it maters much, if anything, at this point.....
You were surprised how little the difference in sharpness between the Canon 600mm mark II and the Sony 200-600mm. I was surprised to see the difference or barely lack thereof between that zoom lens with the GM 600mm even. Upon closer look, I started seeing more of a difference, in addition to the smoother bokeh of the image taken with the prime lens, now, but still not much... Surprise, surprise !
p.4 #19 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
molson wrote:
So far it seems pretty good - very solidly built (better than the 100-400 GM) but the AF accuracy suffers a bit on the A7R III in lower light levels (mostly shooting around ISO 3200 in the shade this afternoon).
I'm not quite prepared to say it's sharper than the Fuji XF 100-400mm zoom, though... although the current Sony bodies obviously have a big advantage in the high ISO noise department. Unfortunately I had to return my Fuji 100-400 so I don't have one on had for a side-by-side comparison.
Discovered same. On A7Riii in low light AF is much slower. I had to move the lens around a bit in the same immediate area looking for something contrasty. Rare will this lens by on the A7Riii though but I was curious.
p.4 #20 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
kdrk888 wrote:
tried the 2x TC on the 200-600 last night, it looks OK but not really that sharp IMO, due to possibly a variety of reasons, including operator error.
Douglas we live in the east. The 'seeing' is always compromised compared to those living in Cali,Az,NM. Even when 'clear' the sky is not. There is so much moisture in my area it damns astrophotography. Wait until late fall or winter and try again and I bet you'll see a huge difference.
If I really want I can drive up to over 6000 feet here and subtract 5000 feet of atmosphere. Big difference.
and yes, as expected, the lens performs just fine at a shorter FL. I am including two images to display the performance here at different FL. Both images were just edited using LR. I am convinced it would have looked better had I done more editing using PS but that's not the idea here.
. 
