Reading all this makes me wonder, is this at all a firmware fixable fault? After all, it is a 2000,- superzoom lens, not a 10.000 supertele primelens. Components used in the AF motor, but also the glasswork could well limit the performance of this lens at or close to infinity, certainly in "difficult light" circumstances and over larger distances where the difference between consumer zoomlenses and high end prime lenses really shows. I have come to lower my expectations myself with long distance shooting. Even the stellar Nikkor 500PF loses much of its magic when adding a 1.4tc and shooting over larger distances. For that, I assume I will still need a 500mm or 600mm f4 lens.
ChrisMak wrote:
Reading all this makes me wonder, is this at all a firmware fixable fault? After all, it is a 2000,- superzoom lens, not a 10.000 supertele primelens. Components used in the AF motor, but also the glasswork could well limit the performance of this lens at or close to infinity, certainly in "difficult light" circumstances and over larger distances where the difference between consumer zoomlenses and high end prime lenses really shows. I have come to lower my expectations myself with long distance shooting. Even the stellar Nikkor 500PF loses much of its magic when adding a 1.4tc and shooting over larger distances. For that, I assume I will still need a 500mm or 600mm f4 lens....Show more →
But the problem doesn’t occur with the same lens on the A9.
ChrisMak wrote:
Reading all this makes me wonder, is this at all a firmware fixable fault? After all, it is a 2000,- superzoom lens, not a 10.000 supertele primelens. Components used in the AF motor, but also the glasswork could well limit the performance of this lens at or close to infinity, certainly in "difficult light" circumstances and over larger distances where the difference between consumer zoomlenses and high end prime lenses really shows. I have come to lower my expectations myself with long distance shooting. Even the stellar Nikkor 500PF loses much of its magic when adding a 1.4tc and shooting over larger distances. For that, I assume I will still need a 500mm or 600mm f4 lens....Show more →
This is what I keep trying to say. I think people have unrealistic expectations for this lens given the price. Whether the compromise is resolving ability or focusing speed I don't know but I just think it's a lot to expect given the price and the reach and range of reach it offers. But I could be wrong...
molson wrote:
No thanks - I had my fill of owning expensive telephotos that the manufacturer wouldn't repair or service when I owned Olympus Four Thirds gear.
We talking Canon, not Olympus which had what, one 300mm f4 lens from I can remember.
I know for certain it isn’t an optics issue as I can get amazingly sharp shots out of the combo.
I can’t see it being an AF component issue as I routinely shoot swallows with the 1.4TC on it at f/9 on the A9(II) so the motor can keep up with the 60 calculations per second coming from the A9 series.
I’ve certainly found that OSS 1 is an issue. The other modes do improve things or turning it off if SS is high enough.
Now maybe there is an issue with only getting 20 calculations per second combined with what is ultimately a slower AF motor in the 2-6 compared to the 1-4 and the 400/600 primes.
2xbass wrote:
This is what I keep trying to say. I think people have unrealistic expectations for this lens given the price. Whether the compromise is resolving ability or focusing speed I don't know but I just think it's a lot to expect given the price and the reach and range of reach it offers. But I could be wrong...
bobby350z wrote:
We talking Canon, not Olympus which had what, one 300mm f4 lens from I can remember.
Olympus never had a 300mm f4 in the 4/3 system. They did have the 14-35mm f2, 35-100mm f2, 150mm f2, 90-250mm f2.8, and 300mm f2.8 lenses... probably all sharper than anything Canon or Nikon could produce; it's just too bad they stopped supporting them even before they were officially discontinued.
arbitrage wrote:
I know for certain it isn’t an optics issue as I can get amazingly sharp shots out of the combo.
I can’t see it being an AF component issue as I routinely shoot swallows with the 1.4TC on it at f/9 on the A9(II) so the motor can keep up with the 60 calculations per second coming from the A9 series.
I’ve certainly found that OSS 1 is an issue. The other modes do improve things or turning it off if SS is high enough.
Now maybe there is an issue with only getting 20 calculations per second combined with what is ultimately a slower AF motor in the 2-6 compared to the 1-4 and the 400/600 primes.
2xbass wrote:
This is what I keep trying to say. I think people have unrealistic expectations for this lens given the price. Whether the compromise is resolving ability or focusing speed I don't know but I just think it's a lot to expect given the price and the reach and range of reach it offers. But I could be wrong...
the o.p. stated, in his first post: "When the combo correctly focuses on a moving bird or jet the sharpness and results are stunning"
there has never been an issue with fe200-600 p.q., including on an a7riv, unless the lens is defective, which can happen.
don't listen to the troll that tried to derail this thread and make it about p.q.... he doesn't even own an fe200-600.
the target market for this lens is the 150-600/60-600/200-500/rf200-500 market, which is priced at about $2k... if somebody thinks that it should perform like supertelephoto primes that cost $10k, that doesn't make sense
ChrisMak wrote:
Reading all this makes me wonder, is this at all a firmware fixable fault? After all, it is a 2000,- superzoom lens, not a 10.000 supertele primelens. Components used in the AF motor, but also the glasswork could well limit the performance of this lens at or close to infinity, certainly in "difficult light" circumstances and over larger distances where the difference between consumer zoomlenses and high end prime lenses really shows. I have come to lower my expectations myself with long distance shooting. Even the stellar Nikkor 500PF loses much of its magic when adding a 1.4tc and shooting over larger distances. For that, I assume I will still need a 500mm or 600mm f4 lens....Show more →
I used to have the 500PF and I have a Canon 500mm f/4. They’re both better than the 200-600mm on the A7R IV but comparable in sharpness to the 200-600mm on the A9. The micro contrast and bokeh are better with those lenses than the Sony, as is to be expected. I’ve also shot with the Canon 100-400 II and the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm. The Sony is as sharp as that Canon and much better than the Tamron and Sigma. It’s an amazing lens for the money.
To arbitrage:
you just proved my point, your "spectacular" images have good colors and bokeh but sharpness is missing. And as I said before (but you chose to ignore it), sharpness is not the main quality of a lens but for the 'wildlife" lens it is. And this one is not there. Or maybe it is a user fault but the fact is still here. Images are soft, all of them.
I suggest either A) a new monitor, B) glasses, or C) an account on dpreview.
If those aren’t sharp, then scalpels are butter knives.
tester_V wrote:
To arbitrage:
you just proved my point, your "spectacular" images have good colors and bokeh but sharpness is missing. And as I said before (but you chose to ignore it), sharpness is not the main quality of a lens but for the 'wildlife" lens it is. And this one is not there. Or maybe it is a user fault but the fact is still here. Images are soft, all of them.
tester_V wrote:
To arbitrage:
you just proved my point, your "spectacular" images have good colors and bokeh but sharpness is missing. And as I said before (but you chose to ignore it), sharpness is not the main quality of a lens but for the 'wildlife" lens it is. And this one is not there. Or maybe it is a user fault but the fact is still here. Images are soft, all of them.
Please post a bird image that you consider sharp so we all can see. I think you will just slither away rather than posting.
Fact 1: the 200-600 is a great lens IN CERTAIN USE CASES, as proven by fast moving subjects on the A9 and slower ones on the A7 bodies
Fact 2: the 200-600 DOES NOT focus reliably on any body except the A9 series
Fact 2 does not somehow negate fact 1. It’s a fine lens at a fine price that is flawed when combined with the A7 series. No one knows why yet or if it is fixable in firmware.
Your stupid diversions into the quality of each other’s shots is pointless and irrelevant to this conversation. There are plenty of reference photos to prove both fact 1 and 2 without being petty and using personal attacks. Walks around your neighborhood aren’t cancelled and quite a few of you would do better to take one than continue bickering about nonsense.
I keep reading about 200-600 and A7RIV problems, but I have been very happy with that combo. In fact I bought A7R4 for reach and the idea was to use A7R4 with 200-600. Having shot hummingbirds that are not always easy to shoot, it focused pretty good and it seems to focus on the eyes. It is much better than my previous experience with Nikons and 200-500 lens and way way better than Sigma 150-600 lens I had on Canon and Sony with adapter. I find the combo sharp and results awesome:
I have not shot planes with that combo, but it seems to be working fine so far. Please note that I don't use "Tracking" Mode on Sony A9 or A7R4, I don't find it really works that great on things that are not humans (and not even that reliable on Humans) I usually just use center, zone, or small box, and try to track that way.
RoamingScott wrote:
Fact 1: the 200-600 is a great lens IN CERTAIN USE CASES, as proven by fast moving subjects on the A9 and slower ones on the A7 bodies
Fact 2: the 200-600 DOES NOT focus reliably on any body except the A9 series
Fact 2 does not somehow negate fact 1. It’s a fine lens at a fine price that is flawed when combined with the A7 series. No one knows why yet or if it is fixable in firmware.
Your stupid diversions into the quality of each other’s shots is pointless and irrelevant to this conversation. There are plenty of reference photos to prove both fact 1 and 2 without being petty and using personal attacks. Walks around your neighborhood aren’t cancelled and quite a few of you would do better to take one than continue bickering about nonsense. ...Show more →
I'm not totally sure about Fact 2. It seems to do fine on A7RIII based on a few first hand experiences in this thread. Also a friend has the lens on A7III and is loving it. He is posting lots of great shots and has been very happy with it. Although this is his first Sony system and he was previously using 7D2 and 100-400II for many years.
Personally I can't say about the A7III and A7RIII as I've only shot the lens on A9, A9II and two copies of the A7RIV.
