AGeoJO wrote:
That’s good news! Did the repair facility fix the lens or the camera or both then?
Actually I just talked to them and they said it would be actually the lens.
However they also stated, that it is a strange thing because the factory calibration is the same for all 200600...
So far they had about 5 cases and they request the actual pair (cam/lens) despite the lens being the 'faulty' part.
A standard technician wouldn't have the time to work that out and the company cant spend the time/money to do so.
Try to get another 200600 in your hand and compare the results.
sami71 wrote:
I have had the R4 only a few weeks and haven't had a chance to fully test it. I did however run into a problem with 2xTC. In AF-C mode the R4 would find focus and then backfocus when taking the picture. 1.4xTC worked and the 2xTC/200-600 combo works flawlessly on a9. When I switched to AF-S all was fine.
AF-C is only supported up to f/11 with the A7RIV. 200-600 with 2xTC is f/14. Only the A9 and A9II support slower than f/11 (f/16).
nobody23 wrote:
Actually I just talked to them and they said it would be actually the lens.
However they also stated, that it is a strange thing because the factory calibration is the same for all 200600...
So far they had about 5 cases and they request the actual pair (cam/lens) despite the lens being the 'faulty' part.
A standard technician wouldn't have the time to work that out and the company cant spend the time/money to do so.
Try to get another 200600 in your hand and compare the results.
Kind regards
Nicolas
Interesting! I bought mine together with the GM 600mm. Until about 3 weeks ago, the GM lens received more my attention for obvious reasons . Due to shooting circumstances at 2 falcon sites, where I have to be more flexible in terms of focal length, I started using the zoom lens more and more on my A9 II. It grew on me and I like the results very much. The image quality does rival that of the GM albeit under certain circumstances and the AF on that body is remarkable, too. However, I would like to be able to use that lens on the A7r IV as well to get higher resolution files. So far, I have deliberately avoided using that combo since I don't feel like messing up certain shooting opps that I am after right now. Thank you!
AGeoJO wrote:
Interesting! I bought mine together with the GM 600mm. Until about 3 weeks ago, the GM lens received more my attention for obvious reasons . Due to shooting circumstances at 2 falcon sites, where I have to be more flexible in terms of focal length, I started using the zoom lens more and more on my A9 II. It grew on me and I like the results very much. The image quality does rival that of the GM albeit under certain circumstances and the AF on that body is remarkable, too. However, I would like to be able to use that lens on the A7r IV as well to get higher resolution files. So far, I have deliberately avoided using that combo since I don't feel like messing up certain shooting opps that I am after right now. Thank you!...Show more →
Hi Joshua,
I am watching this closely regarding the A7rIV with the 200-600mm G zoom. It would be nice to have the 600mm GM but, to keep my wife from divorcing me at this point in my life.... Anyway, I have been happy with the digital results with my A7rIII with my 200-600mm G zoom, but I have yet to really experiment and improve with the combination for BIF. I have found as an example when I took photos at Gatorland and along Black Point Wildlife Drive, Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, FL in January, the zoom lens affords flexibility not available with the 600mm GM lens and even allowed for many images not possible with the prime lens.
I am watching this closely regarding the A7rIV with the 200-600mm G zoom. It would be nice to have the 600mm GM but, to keep my wife from divorcing me at this point in my life.... Anyway, I have been happy with the digital results with my A7rIII with my 200-600mm G zoom, but I have yet to really experiment and improve with the combination for BIF. I have found as an example when I took photos at Gatorland and along Black Point Wildlife Drive, Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, FL in January, the zoom lens affords flexibility not available with the 600mm GM lens and even allowed for many images not possible with the prime lens.
Yes, the 200-600mm being a zoom lens offers more flexibility, of course. But the bokeh of the GM 600 is absolutely smoother but against a far away background the bokeh coming from the 200-600mm is smooth. I could see that the AF drive of the GM is more responsive but that of the 200-600mm is no slouch either. I am talking about tracking fast flying falcons in this case. So, the value what the lens offers is tremendous and by far, it is $ per $ a better value than the GM. However, there are circumstances that the GM really shines...and I would leave it like that here . I am afraid that in order to unlock the AF capability of the 200-600mm lens, it has to be combined with the A9 or A9 II. I believe that that will remain to be the case, even after Sony has figured out or sorted out the AF issues a lot of folks have experienced.
Vetteman wrote:
Like many others have posted I have experienced exactly the same issues and disappointing results with the A7R4 & 200-600 OSS lens combo that many here have had. And as other have stated I'm not happy about it with the investment I've made in Sony gear.
I have the A7R2, A7R4, and A92 bodies. My results with the 200-600 affixed to these bodies:
A7R2 = the combo works great, focus is nailed almost always
That's pretty remarkable fo the 200-600 G - since I could never say that about any other lens I ever used on an A7R II...
AGeoJO wrote:
Yes, the 200-600mm being a zoom lens offers more flexibility, of course. But the bokeh of the GM 600 is absolutely smoother but against a far away background the bokeh coming from the 200-600mm is smooth. I could see that the AF drive of the GM is more responsive but that of the 200-600mm is no slouch either. I am talking about tracking fast flying falcons in this case. So, the value what the lens offers is tremendous and by far, it is $ per $ a better value than the GM. However, there are circumstances that the GM really shines...and I would leave it like that here . I am afraid that in order to unlock the AF capability of the 200-600mm lens, it has to be combined with the A9 or A9 II. I believe that that will remain to be the case, even after Sony has figured out or sorted out the AF issues a lot of folks have experienced. ...Show more →
I've had mixed feelings about the AF between the 200-600 and the 600GM. I find the 200-600 to be more smooth and less twitchy. The 600GM may be a little quicker but it often has some weird twitches to it....although thankfully unlike Canon's twitchy AF on cameras like 7D2 it doesn't seem to have any affect on the amazing AF hit rate.
nobody23 wrote:
Actually I just talked to them and they said it would be actually the lens.
However they also stated, that it is a strange thing because the factory calibration is the same for all 200600...
So far they had about 5 cases and they request the actual pair (cam/lens) despite the lens being the 'faulty' part.
A standard technician wouldn't have the time to work that out and the company cant spend the time/money to do so.
Try to get another 200600 in your hand and compare the results.
Kind regards
Nicolas
So what is exactly about the lens that is causing the issue?
arbitrage wrote:
Actually it may just be PDAF I was thinking about. Not AF-C. You are likely correct.
But there are still going to be some focus issues with an f/14 lens if it has to go to CDAF.
f/13 actually. This was tested with plenty of available light and the lens would focus normally but when taking a picture it would change the focus. Try again, focused quickly but every time you took a picture the focus changed and the image was completely out of focus. AF-S worked perfectly. I wouldn't normally use the 2x on a7Riv anyways but thought it was a weird issue.
No one has specified a tripod and head so I assume these are all handheld? Why not use a sturdy tripod and gimbal to see if that removes the problem?
Other obvious ideas are to set steady shot for auto (or manual and the FL) and to use a higher shutter speed (sometimes not enough light with with a F6.3 lens with a TC).
Also realize that the 600mm F4.0 GM Lens is $13,000 much more expensive than a used A9 (or other body) for dedicated BIF use.
I tested with a tripod, high shutter speed, and IBIS off. It does not fix the problem
SoundHound wrote:
No one has specified a tripod and head so I assume these are all handheld? Why not use a sturdy tripod and gimbal to see if that removes the problem?
Other obvious ideas are to set steady shot for auto (or manual and the FL) and to use a higher shutter speed (sometimes not enough light with with a F6.3 lens with a TC).
Also realize that the 600mm F4.0 GM Lens is $13,000 much more expensive than a used A9 (or other body) for dedicated BIF use.
My 200-600 arrived today. I plan on using it with the a9ii, but I also have the a7r iv. I'm curious to see if I experience the same thing others are with the iv.
arbitrage wrote:
Buy a used A9 and a 1.4TC. Those two items combined with the 200-600 get you almost as much “reach” as A7RIV and 200-600, focuses way better, gets you the amazing blackout free VF, always on silent shutter, 20FPS etc. And the extra stop of ISO you will need to use the 1.4TC is easily equaled out with the 24MP Full frame image compared to a 26MP APS-C image out of the A7RIV as you make use of the tiny pixels for your “reach”.
I did just that last week, took my A9 with the 200-600 plus 1.4X on it all the time to do the shore-birds. Good AF, sharp images most of the time and yet, I found that I still have to crop the image for the right composition and placement of subject. Sure, the subject is bigger in the frame, but you still have to leave room around it. In terms of pure 'reach', yes, it is a great combo as I get 840mm on the camera, but that is only useful for very small birds - like the tiny plover I was aiming for. In exchange for the reach I did notice s somewhat sluggish AF and of course it is harder to keep the fast-moving bird in the frame all the time.
I am going to try the 600f4 plus a7r4 next week. The problem with this combo is of course the weight and that is the entire reason to have the 200-600 (apart from the zoom capability). But I am hopeful that I will still be able to manage this without a tripod.
I wrote to Roger Cicala (from lensrentals) and suggested him to look into this issue with the A7RIV and the 200-600 for his blog. Roger is a really cool guy and so he sent me a reply.
He said they (lensrentals) already confirmed the issue a while ago and informed Sony. He said the issue with the combination is a firmware update kind of problem, thought it could be either the camera or the lens needing the update. I asked him if hey knew if Sony was working on something and he said that he had not been told directly but he assumed they are working on the firmware as it is pretty routine.
Roger also said that it could be either a case of the camera needing a firmware update, or the lens getting the update via the camera in which case it could be fixed rather quickly, but it might also be a reprogramming job for the lens done at a service center in which case it could take Sony longer to get out a fix for it.
To my ears, this is pretty good news for everyone having issues with the combination. Hopefully Sony is able to push out the required firmware quickly.
. Due to shooting circumstances at 2 falcon sites, where I have to be more flexible in terms of focal length, I started using the zoom lens more and more on my A9 II. It grew on me and I like the results very much. The image quality does rival that of the GM albeit under certain circumstances and the AF on that body is remarkable, too. However, I would like to be able to use that lens on the A7r IV as well to get higher resolution files. So far, I have deliberately avoided using that combo since I don't feel like messing up certain shooting opps that I am after right now. Thank you!