p.6 #3 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Can I ask: for those of you posting photographs... Do you feel this lens is good? A lot of the photos look oddly sharpened and otherwise soft. I have the lens sitting in my office and have not yet opened it. I am not sure if what I’m seeing is correct tho.
p.6 #5 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Here is someone who used the 200-600 with the new Sony A7r IV body in Alaska (July 2019)...he has some comments/images showing the fast(er) AF of this combination. He was able to focus on/capture Bald Eagles coming directly at the camera. (As an aside to Canadians, this is an American bird that occasionally wanders, when it loses focus, into your land - perhaps you have seen one?)
Anyway, looks like the Ar IV will provide much better AF response with this lens:
p.6 #6 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
rdcny wrote:
Here is someone who used the 200-600 with the new Sony A7r IV body in Alaska (July 2019)...he has some comments/images showing the fast(er) AF of this combination. He was able to focus on/capture Bald Eagles coming directly at the camera. (As an aside to Canadians, this is an American bird that occasionally wanders, when it it loses focus, into your land - perhaps you have seen one?)
Anyway, looks like the Ar IV will provide much better AF response with this lens:
p.6 #7 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Jesse Evans wrote:
Can I ask: for those of you posting photographs... Do you feel this lens is good? A lot of the photos look oddly sharpened and otherwise soft. I have the lens sitting in my office and have not yet opened it. I am not sure if what I’m seeing is correct tho.
The effects of atmospherics that can come with shooting long FLs particularly at this time of the year might be some of what you are seeing.
For best scrutiny and decision making do the tests yourself so you understand the shooting conditions and how they may or may not effect your test images.
p.6 #8 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Jesse Evans wrote:
Can I ask: for those of you posting photographs... Do you feel this lens is good? A lot of the photos look oddly sharpened and otherwise soft. I have the lens sitting in my office and have not yet opened it. I am not sure if what I’m seeing is correct tho.
Are you kidding? The posted photos are by different people under different circumstances, and you will get a variation from perfectly fine to not so great.
Since you actually own the lens, you test it yourself. It is not rocket science.
p.6 #9 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Jesse Evans wrote:
Can I ask: for those of you posting photographs... Do you feel this lens is good? A lot of the photos look oddly sharpened and otherwise soft. I have the lens sitting in my office and have not yet opened it. I am not sure if what I’m seeing is correct tho.
Hi Jesse,
I think the lens is good but it is not great. I don't think it will have quite the sharpness and more importantly contrast that the 600mm f4 has, but it has good sharpness and contrast and if you process your images appropriately you can make them look great. When it hits the AF exactly right, it is plenty sharp. It does not always hit the AF exactly right. I find myself sorting through several good images to find the great ones.
Is it worth owning... Yes!! Absolutely! Is it better than the 100-400 GM? I'm not sure. For stuff I can get close to, I would probably grab the 100-400GM as I think it is a touch sharper and better contrast and has a much more friendly minimum focus distance, and better keeper rate. But for stuff I can't get close to (birds, bears and wolves), this will be my go to lens. I think I am much more likely to get the shot with this lens than I would a fixed 600mm lens, and the sharpness and contrast are more than good enough to make a great image. It is clearly the best 500 or 600mm lens under $10,000 in the Sony line-up
BTW The Sony 1.4X TC is phenomenal!!! It works well on both the 100-400 GM and the 200-600 with both the A6400 and A7 III. I have to guess the A9 also. I haven't tried the 2X yet, but based on 1.4x would be worth a try. Way better than any of the Nikon or Canon variants I have used.
p.6 #10 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
billsnature wrote:
Hi Jesse,
I think the lens is good but it is not great. I don't think it will have quite the sharpness and more importantly contrast that the 600mm f4 has, but it has good sharpness and contrast and if you process your images appropriately you can make them look great. When it hits the AF exactly right, it is plenty sharp. It does not always hit the AF exactly right. I find myself sorting through several good images to find the great ones.
Is it worth owning... Yes!! Absolutely! Is it better than the 100-400 GM? I'm not sure. For stuff I can get close to, I would probably grab the 100-400GM as I think it is a touch sharper and better contrast and has a much more friendly minimum focus distance, and better keeper rate. But for stuff I can't get close to (birds, bears and wolves), this will be my go to lens. I think I am much more likely to get the shot with this lens than I would a fixed 600mm lens, and the sharpness and contrast are more than good enough to make a great image. It is clearly the best 500 or 600mm lens under $10,000 in the Sony line-up
BTW The Sony 1.4X TC is phenomenal!!! It works well on both the 100-400 GM and the 200-600 with both the A6400 and A7 III. I have to guess the A9 also. I haven't tried the 2X yet, but based on 1.4x would be worth a try. Way better than any of the Nikon or Canon variants I have used.
p.6 #11 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
Piggybacking off of Jesse's "how good is it" question, I have a question specific to those who either use both Nikon and Sony or moved to Sony from Nikon - what are you thoughts on the 200-600 vs either or both the 200-500 and 500 PF in regard to sharpness and AF speed. I should may be leave the 200-500 out of this since the AF speed on the 200-500 is its obvious weak point, but sharpness/contrast comparisons would be great.
I have a sharp copy of the 200-500 and I sold my 500 PF but was considering picking up another one. If the 200-600 can best the 200-500 in sharpness and come close to the 500 PF in sharpness and AF speed, I may just nix the 500 PF and migrate to Sony. I'll probably end up renting the 200-600, but some comments from those who have used all 3 lenses, or at least the 200-600 and one of the Nikon lenses would be welcome (yes, I'm talking to you, arbitrage ).
p.6 #12 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
AvianScott wrote:
Piggybacking off of Jesse's "how good is it" question, I have a question specific to those who either use both Nikon and Sony or moved to Sony from Nikon - what are you thoughts on the 200-600 vs either or both the 200-500 and 500 PF in regard to sharpness and AF speed. I should may be leave the 200-500 out of this since the AF speed on the 200-500 is its obvious weak point, but sharpness/contrast comparisons would be great.
I have a sharp copy of the 200-500 and I sold my 500 PF but was considering picking up another one. If the 200-600 can best the 200-500 in sharpness and come close to the 500 PF in sharpness and AF speed, I may just nix the 500 PF and migrate to Sony. I'll probably end up renting the 200-600, but some comments from those who have used all 3 lenses, or at least the 200-600 and one of the Nikon lenses would be welcome (yes, I'm talking to you, arbitrage )....Show more →
I'm interested to see how the lenses compare as well. Are you already a Sony shooter? I think it's important to note which body you will be using as well when making the decision. The a9 and a7r IV would match best to the lens or an a6400. The a7r III doesn't match the D500 in AF (I own both).
p.6 #13 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
40Driggs wrote:
I'm interested to see how the lenses compare as well. Are you already a Sony shooter? I think it's important to note which body you will be using as well when making the decision. The a9 and a7r IV would match best to the lens or an a6400. The a7r III doesn't match the D500 in AF (I own both).
I'm not a Sony shooter...yet. I did rent the a6400 to try it adapted with some Canon lenses and I was pretty happy with the AF performance on static subjects, and I fully understand the AF will be much better with native lenses. 90% of my shooting is done with an APS-C body (D500) so the a6400 would be my first choice, but I wouldn't be against an a9 or a7rIV. My big beef was the form factor of the a6400, so hopefully Sony releases an APS-C body with the form factor of an A7 series body. Going out to 600mm with only 1/3 stop loss of light and similar sharpness to the 500 PF would be most ideal in my book, especially on a zoom lens.
p.6 #14 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
billsnature wrote:
Hi Jesse,
I think the lens is good but it is not great. I don't think it will have quite the sharpness and more importantly contrast that the 600mm f4 has, but it has good sharpness and contrast and if you process your images appropriately you can make them look great. When it hits the AF exactly right, it is plenty sharp. It does not always hit the AF exactly right. I find myself sorting through several good images to find the great ones.
Is it worth owning... Yes!! Absolutely! Is it better than the 100-400 GM? I'm not sure. For stuff I can get close to, I would probably grab the 100-400GM as I think it is a touch sharper and better contrast and has a much more friendly minimum focus distance, and better keeper rate. But for stuff I can't get close to (birds, bears and wolves), this will be my go to lens. I think I am much more likely to get the shot with this lens than I would a fixed 600mm lens, and the sharpness and contrast are more than good enough to make a great image. It is clearly the best 500 or 600mm lens under $10,000 in the Sony line-up
BTW The Sony 1.4X TC is phenomenal!!! It works well on both the 100-400 GM and the 200-600 with both the A6400 and A7 III. I have to guess the A9 also. I haven't tried the 2X yet, but based on 1.4x would be worth a try. Way better than any of the Nikon or Canon variants I have used.
The online reviewer's consensus seems to be that it is as sharp if not slightly sharper than the 100-400 in the applicable ranges. I don't personally have a 100-400 to verify, but in my one evening of messing around with the 2-6 it is very sharp. The sun just poked out for the first time since I got my lens I'm hoping to get more than my daughter and a sparrow in the cross hairs tonight
p.6 #15 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
AvianScott wrote:
I'm not a Sony shooter...yet. I did rent the a6400 to try it adapted with some Canon lenses and I was pretty happy with the AF performance on static subjects, and I fully understand the AF will be much better with native lenses. 90% of my shooting is done with an APS-C body (D500) so the a6400 would be my first choice, but I wouldn't be against an a9 or a7rIV. My big beef was the form factor of the a6400, so hopefully Sony releases an APS-C body with the form factor of an A7 series body. Going out to 600mm with only 1/3 stop loss of light and similar sharpness to the 500 PF would be most ideal in my book, especially on a zoom lens.
I agree that a Sony APS-C with a different form factor would make things interesting. I'm just not a fan of the ergonomics (and battery life) of the a6400, but it looks like a great camera from an AF and image quality standpoint.
p.6 #16 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
AvianScott wrote:
Piggybacking off of Jesse's "how good is it" question, I have a question specific to those who either use both Nikon and Sony or moved to Sony from Nikon - what are you thoughts on the 200-600 vs either or both the 200-500 and 500 PF in regard to sharpness and AF speed. I should may be leave the 200-500 out of this since the AF speed on the 200-500 is its obvious weak point, but sharpness/contrast comparisons would be great.
I have a sharp copy of the 200-500 and I sold my 500 PF but was considering picking up another one. If the 200-600 can best the 200-500 in sharpness and come close to the 500 PF in sharpness and AF speed, I may just nix the 500 PF and migrate to Sony. I'll probably end up renting the 200-600, but some comments from those who have used all 3 lenses, or at least the 200-600 and one of the Nikon lenses would be welcome (yes, I'm talking to you, arbitrage )....Show more →
I have the Sony A9 and 100-400GM and the Nikon D850 and 500F5.6 PF. I had the 200-600 on order but decided to pass on it when it came in. Why? With the D850 and 500mm lens I can do better for BIF and wildlife that is further away. The A9 and 100-400 is better for wildlife that is closer in and provides more flexibility. The 200-600 lens was too heavy and I could do better my Nikon combination. I did have a 200-500 but traded that in for the 500mm since I am always shooting that setup at 500mm (for bald eagles)
p.6 #17 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
TEST: 200-600mm vs Canon 300mmf2.8 IS MK2 + 2X TC + mc11 @600mmF6.3 on A7R3
In my switching process from Canon to Sony, I was hoping the 2-6 could replace my trusted Canon combo as a hiking wildlife lens.
But my initial testing is not only positive:
As expected, the AF speed is much faster on the native lens, but how about image quality?
Test Setup:
Shooting handheld multiple images with refocus in between on a static test subjects, using 1/640s f6,3 and IS on.
(A kind of realistic setup for me on slow moving targets)
My findings (so far):
Canon combo is little sharper around center of frame. (I really hoped it would be the opposite!)
On short distance (15m), the 200-600mm is definitly shorter than 600mm, maybe around 550mm.
I'm a bit disappointed about the IS on the 2-6.
The viewfinder is more unstable compared to canon combo when shooting handheld.
I'm also worried about the AF consistancy. I would say it produced only 2 critical sharp out of 10 shots compared to 7 out of 10 with the adapted lens on the same A7R3.
I will do more testing of course, but so far i'm not really convinced
p.6 #18 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
petho wrote:
TEST: 200-600mm vs Canon 300mmf2.8 IS MK2 + 2X TC + mc11 @600mmF6.3 on A7R3
In my switching process from Canon to Sony, I was hoping the 2-6 could replace my trusted Canon combo as a hiking wildlife lens.
But my initial testing is not only positive:
As expected, the AF speed is much faster on the native lens, but how about image quality?
Test Setup:
Shooting handheld multiple images with refocus in between on a static test subjects, using 1/640s f6,3 and IS on.
(A kind of realistic setup for me on slow moving targets)
My findings (so far):
Canon combo is little sharper around center of frame. (I really hoped it would be the opposite!)
On short distance (15m), the 200-600mm is definitly shorter than 600mm, maybe around 550mm.
I'm a bit disappointed about the IS on the 2-6.
The viewfinder is more unstable compared to canon combo when shooting handheld.
I'm also worried about the AF consistancy. I would say it produced only 2 critical sharp out of 10 shots compared to 7 out of 10 with the adapted lens on the same A7R3.
I will do more testing of course, but so far i'm not really convinced ...Show more →
The 200-600mm is very sharp at 600mm at wide open. I am sorry for being skeptical about sharpness evaluation NOT done on a sturdy tripod. Either your copy of the 200-600mm is not up to par or there are other factors play a role in your evaluation. I did a brief comparison between the 200-600mm lens with my GM 600mm. It did give the prime lens a run for its money. I had the Canon 300mm f/2.8 Mark II before and it is indeed one of the sharpest Canon long lenses out there but it would be hard for me to buy the idea that the Canon lens PLUS a 2X TC would be sharper than the 200-600mm lens. Sorry...
With that said, I agree that the focal length of the 200-600mm on the long end is shorter than 600mm relative to the GM 600mm.
p.6 #19 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
AvianScott wrote:
Piggybacking off of Jesse's "how good is it" question, I have a question specific to those who either use both Nikon and Sony or moved to Sony from Nikon - what are you thoughts on the 200-600 vs either or both the 200-500 and 500 PF in regard to sharpness and AF speed. I should may be leave the 200-500 out of this since the AF speed on the 200-500 is its obvious weak point, but sharpness/contrast comparisons would be great.
I have a sharp copy of the 200-500 and I sold my 500 PF but was considering picking up another one. If the 200-600 can best the 200-500 in sharpness and come close to the 500 PF in sharpness and AF speed, I may just nix the 500 PF and migrate to Sony. I'll probably end up renting the 200-600, but some comments from those who have used all 3 lenses, or at least the 200-600 and one of the Nikon lenses would be welcome (yes, I'm talking to you, arbitrage )....Show more →
Notice card was just left at my house....will pick up lens tomorrow....don't have the 200-500 anymore to do a direct comparison but I can report back with some impressions. My 200-500 was pretty good but I preferred to stop it down to 6.3 or 7.1 at 500mm. 500PF I never stop down...doesn't need it. 500PF has much faster AF than 200-500.
So far other comparisons show the 200-600 sharper than 100-400/1.4TC (which I already own) and that combo is really sharp and has great AF on the my A9. One comparison shows the 200-600 to be equal at 400mm to the bare 100-400 at 400mm. The 100-400 bare is very, very sharp, as good as 500PF. Don't need to stop it down either.
I will try and report back more impressions on the 500PF vs 200-600. I can even mount the 500PF on the A9 to equalize the sensor differences (AF is terrible but IQ won't change).
p.6 #20 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
AGeoJO wrote:
I am sorry for being skeptical about sharpness evaluation NOT done on a sturdy tripod. Either your copy of the 200-600mm is not up to par or there are other factors play a role in your evaluation. I did a brief comparison between the 200-600mm lens with my GM 600mm. It did give the prime lens a run for its money. I had the Canon 300mm f/2.8 Mark II before and it is indeed one of the sharpest Canon long lenses out there but it would be hard for me to buy the idea that the Canon lens PLUS a 2X TC would be sharper than the 200-600mm lens. Sorry... ...Show more →
Fortunately, most people considering the 200-600 could care less how it compares to an expensive, heavy Canon f2.8 lens.
I have only had the 200-600 for about four hours. Just took around 100 shots (with A9) of an Australian Blue Heeler running full speed towards me and would say over 95% were sharp and in-focus.
Will get around to posting images later, along with in-focus shots of a dragonfly.
