p.95 #5 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
it is amazing, the lens is soft at 600mm (soft for the money),
You guys see it right?
I understand you bought it and must believe it is sharp but it is not.
Some of the shots look very sharp but it is because all of those (the sharp one) were taken from a very close distance. And the ones taken from 60+ feet are soft.
I see tons of great pictures posted here, great all-around shots, sharpness is the last thing to look for in a picture but still, for $2000 this glass should be better than an $800 Tamron.
p.95 #6 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
tester_V wrote:
it is amazing, the lens is soft at 600mm (soft for the money),
You guys see it right?
I understand you bought it and must believe it is sharp but it is not.
Some of the shots look very sharp but it is because all of those (the sharp one) were taken from a very close distance. And the ones taken from 60+ feet are soft.
I see tons of great pictures posted here, great all-around shots, sharpness is the last thing to look for in a picture but still, for $2000 this glass should be better than an $800 Tamron.
I don't agree with that assessment at all but I only have my copy to go off of (and three close shooting buddies that have all owned the most expensive glass you can imagine (500 and 600 primes) and also wouldn't agree with that).
I don't know how you can really tell which photos on here are taken close or not close. Sure you can sometimes guess based on DOF per aperture shot but distance from subject to background can change that.
I've only done controlled testing more around 45-50' (not 60' or further) and it was very sharp (Better than 100-400, very close to 500PF). No it isn't as micro-contrasty and bleed your eyes sharp as my 600GM is at longer distances but it is not a soft lens at longer distances.
I've owned the Sigma 150-600C and this Sony 200-600 is much sharper when shot wide open which is what matters for a lens that starts at 6.3. Not sure about the $800 Tamron but the Sigma always held its own or bested the Tamron in online reviews I saw (the G2 sort of evened the field, G1 was behind the C).
p.95 #7 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
tester_V wrote:
it is amazing, the lens is soft at 600mm (soft for the money),
You guys see it right?
I understand you bought it and must believe it is sharp but it is not.
Some of the shots look very sharp but it is because all of those (the sharp one) were taken from a very close distance. And the ones taken from 60+ feet are soft.
I see tons of great pictures posted here, great all-around shots, sharpness is the last thing to look for in a picture but still, for $2000 this glass should be better than an $800 Tamron.
1/800, f/6.3, ISO 200, 600mm
Distance 323 m / 1059 ft
p.95 #9 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
tester_V wrote:
it is amazing, the lens is soft at 600mm (soft for the money),
You guys see it right?
I understand you bought it and must believe it is sharp but it is not.
Some of the shots look very sharp but it is because all of those (the sharp one) were taken from a very close distance. And the ones taken from 60+ feet are soft.
I see tons of great pictures posted here, great all-around shots, sharpness is the last thing to look for in a picture but still, for $2000 this glass should be better than an $800 Tamron.
The 200-600 is similar to the 100-400 GM I had and sold. I always thought things look softer really far out has to do with atmospheric haze, wind, and humidity. If it's sharp at 50ft but soft at 80ft with the same FL, it may be external conditions that's out of your control.
p.95 #12 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
I'm not telling you guys it is a "bad lens" it is not.
It is just visibly soft to my eyes. I probably checked all 90 pages on this thread and what I see reminds me Tamron 150-600mm. It is a good lens when the target is close and really not that good from 30+ meters -soft. Soft for $2000 price. I do not own Sony 200-600mm lens it but I'm planning to rent it and test it myself. So far Sigma beats it in sharpness hands down.
p.95 #16 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
tester_V wrote:
I'm not telling you guys it is a "bad lens" it is not.
It is just visibly soft to my eyes. I probably checked all 90 pages on this thread and what I see reminds me Tamron 150-600mm. It is a good lens when the target is close and really not that good from 30+ meters -soft. Soft for $2000 price. I do not own Sony 200-600mm lens it but I'm planning to rent it and test it myself. So far Sigma beats it in sharpness hands down.
You have not owned or tested it and yet you already claim Sigma beats it?
You say every image in 90 pages of this thread are not as sharp as your Sigma?
Well I've owned both and it doesn't. The Sigma had to be stopped down to even start to challenge the 200-600.
I can produce images with sharpness that rival every lens I've owned.
Again...how do you know the distances certain images are shot at?
Also remember that FM Forums images are scaled poorly if viewing on 4K or 5K monitors. Everything looks a little softer on here than it does if you see the actual file or even the jpeg on a computer before uploading to FM. If you go to my Flickr page you can view images up to 6K if the file had that much resolution left after cropping.
Final point I'll make....looking through your Flickr images shows a trend to over-sharpening IMO. I can make a 200-600 image look like your most recent perched Yellow-rumped Warbler image if I go heavy handed on the sharpening.
p.95 #18 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
I think if you look over Tester_V posts in various threads, he has a proclivity to post negative comments about certain brands of lenses. Particularly against Tamron. He seems to have an agenda of some sort, but never explains it when asked about it.
p.95 #19 · Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G Image Thread
it is even quite sharp with lots of grass in front
Sony ILCE-9 + FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Sony ILCE-9 + FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
I have photographed with sigma 150-600 / 5-6.3 os hsm contemporary with adapter on A7r II
and I definitely can't remember that it would in any way be sharper than Sony at 600 mm and wide open
I think the Sony 200-600 is a better lens in all aspects
Sure it should be, included as there is a price difference and 200-600 is made for sony body
Then I rarely take discussions about camera body or lenses when I think I have too little knowledge of the technical part
What I don't understand, is that you say you have not owned or tested it 200-600 so maybe you should keep your opinion for yourself, at least until you have tested and can make your own opinion about it
)
