ChrisMak wrote:
It's a very compelling lens at the price point, I almost got one myself with the A7RIV. I have to admit that the reports on (relatively) weaker performance at larger distances close to infinity as well as inconsistent AF with the A7RIV put me off, but I also would never expect expensive prime lens IQ and performance in what is essentially, by the laws of physics and economy, a consumer superzoomlens. I don't really understand why neither Sony, nor Nikon or Canon, make a high quality 600mm f5.6 prime lens for those that don't persé need the f4 aperture at 600mm. So below the giant and véry expensive 600mm f4 lens, you inevitably end up with compromises. It could be very different, but no camera company has any interest.
I can understand that the majority of 200-600 users will prefer the zoomlens though.
Hey Chris....Canon actually does make a "600 f/5.6" and I think you owned it
400DOII with 1.4TC....close as you can get and is of the highest optical quality IMHO even with the 1.4TC on it (heck even with the 2xTC on it I never wanted for more sharpness). Plus it is a DO, so shorter and lighter than any traditional 600 f/5.6 would be.
As far as criticism of lenses at long distances and out at infinity....I have to wonder what type of subjects one would shoot at that range? Certainly not birds....any shot that far away will be a throw away no matter how good of a lens you own. Yes my 600/4 can resolve better than my 200-600 at longer distances but anything that far away is just as speck covering 1/2 a MP in the end so who cares? The only value for further subjects I find with a 600/4 over a 200-600 is I can get reliable performance at 1200mm (pretty much the only reason I bought the 600 in the end) and that does expand how far a subject can be from you. But it is still fairly close in order to get a decent amount of pixels on the bird.
rdcny wrote:
not necessarily for birds in flight...but a lot depends upon how "busy" the background is...I remember shooting Harlequin Ducks on a fairly calm wave day at Barnegat NJ...almost all images were out of focus! We had a big discussion back then (January?) about this...it seems sometimes horizontal lines (as in background waves) throw off the AF; or bare branches in the background (or foreground) of perched birds...so to optimize, have a "clean" background. Others have reported that Sony AF is just as susceptible to vertical lines in the background of the main subject...
Whatever you are shooting - shoot many frames! Unfortunately, in the field, it can be difficult to judge with 100% accuracy if the image one just took is critically sharp....Show more →
Sort of related to this, I have been noticing lately that I get my best results from the R4/200-600 when it is overcast. Any time there is brighter areas behind the bird in more sunny conditions it seems to have a greater tendency to mis-focus (usually back focuses).
arbitrage wrote:
Hey Chris....Canon actually does make a "600 f/5.6" and I think you owned it
400DOII with 1.4TC....close as you can get and is of the highest optical quality IMHO even with the 1.4TC on it (heck even with the 2xTC on it I never wanted for more sharpness). Plus it is a DO, so shorter and lighter than any traditional 600 f/5.6 would be.
As far as criticism of lenses at long distances and out at infinity....I have to wonder what type of subjects one would shoot at that range? Certainly not birds....any shot that far away will be a throw away no matter how good of a lens you own. Yes my 600/4 can resolve better than my 200-600 at longer distances but anything that far away is just as speck covering 1/2 a MP in the end so who cares? The only value for further subjects I find with a 600/4 over a 200-600 is I can get reliable performance at 1200mm (pretty much the only reason I bought the 600 in the end) and that does expand how far a subject can be from you. But it is still fairly close in order to get a decent amount of pixels on the bird....Show more →
You are dead right about the 400DOII Geoff, the best lens I ever owned and probably will own, although I do have plans to save up for a Nikon 500mm f4 fl, and that lens should rival it.
I just got weary of thinking what body to put the 400DOII on, and even though it did superbly well with the 1.4TC, still the OOF rendering was just not as smooth as with a longer bare prime.
I was relieved to step away from Canon and get the Nikon 500PF with the D500 and now the Z7. I no longer look for the ideal lens only, but take the matching body (bodies) more into account. The Z7 is near perfect for my uses, not being hardcore BIF, and I have no doubts about the Z8 being a good step up. If Nikon releases a 600PF with the optical quality of the 500PF, that would be ideal. Otherwise, a Nikon 500mm f4 should take a 1.4TC well, like the 400DOII does. The 500PF is best by itself i.m.o.
arbitrage wrote:
Sort of related to this, I have been noticing lately that I get my best results from the R4/200-600 when it is overcast. Any time there is brighter areas behind the bird in more sunny conditions it seems to have a greater tendency to mis-focus (usually back focuses).
Sounds eerily similar to Rob Galbraith's testing of the Canon 1D III AF issues... maybe the cripple hammer has been at work again!
ChrisMak wrote:
You are dead right about the 400DOII Geoff, the best lens I ever owned and probably will own, although I do have plans to save up for a Nikon 500mm f4 fl, and that lens should rival it.
I just got weary of thinking what body to put the 400DOII on, and even though it did superbly well with the 1.4TC, still the OOF rendering was just not as smooth as with a longer bare prime.
I was relieved to step away from Canon and get the Nikon 500PF with the D500 and now the Z7. I no longer look for the ideal lens only, but take the matching body (bodies) more into account. The Z7 is near perfect for my uses, not being hardcore BIF, and I have no doubts about the Z8 being a good step up. If Nikon releases a 600PF with the optical quality of the 500PF, that would be ideal. Otherwise, a Nikon 500mm f4 should take a 1.4TC well, like the 400DOII does. The 500PF is best by itself i.m.o....Show more →
OT: didn’t see until now you’re in Utrecht. I studied and lived there before moving abroad. Great city! Now my son is looking at Leiden and Utrecht, but it’s not as easy as in the old days.
runamuck wrote:
A little late to the party. HOW did you get 4 bluebirds so close together?
their skill and my luck Although back then I posted the series and I was all "look at this shot!," then someone pointed out BA#4 was "slightly out of position"
molson wrote:
Sounds eerily similar to Rob Galbraith's testing of the Canon 1D III AF issues... maybe the cripple hammer has been at work again!
This is way worse then that body! It was only certain situations that the Canon missed and at least you got some keepers with the 1DIII. I remember at the time a lot of owners arguing Galbraith didn't know what he was doing, I don't think anyone here would argue there isn't an issue with the R4 / 200-600.
rd4tile wrote:
This is way worse then that body! It was only certain situations that the Canon missed and at least you got some keepers with the 1DIII. I remember at the time a lot of owners arguing Galbraith didn't know what he was doing, I don't think anyone here would argue there isn't an issue with the R4 / 200-600.
"at least you got some keepers with the 1DIII".....I've got a few keepers with the R4/200-600 also....here are just a few out of 102 that I've worked up...hundreds more lay unprocessed in my LR catalogue....
johnvanr wrote:
OT: didn’t see until now you’re in Utrecht. I studied and lived there before moving abroad. Great city! Now my son is looking at Leiden and Utrecht, but it’s not as easy as in the old days.
Utrecht is still a great city, but I have to admit it is getting a bit crowded. We are currently suffering a rather severe shortage of housing in our whole country, but mainly in the large cities. I studied in Leiden myself and work in Amsterdam, but have lived in Utrecht all my life. I have had no reason to leave
so your Vlade Past who attacked me on Flickr? LoL! Your quite the TROLL here and on other forums. FACT 1: Sony 200-600 is superior to any 150-600 zoom on market today and i've tried them all including the Nikon 200-500 which is also a better lens that your Sigma 150-600 Sport. Matter of fact, id say the Sigma 150-600 sport resolves like a coke bottle if placed on an A7RIV... that camera require way more resolving power than your Sigma can handle. Stop bothering people and go have your delusions treated. Your sick in the head
ha ha ha! This fella tester_v also known as Vlade past on Flickr is a well known troll . He shoot the sigma 150-600 sport and thinks it's sharp I know better...the Sigma is not only less sharp than the sony 200600G, but also focuses much slower, is 2lbs heavier (front heavy) which doesn't balance well at all. The zoom is a long throw which is terrible. It's also a dust magnet. No thanks!!! You're on the roof forums pal so go away
tester_V wrote:
I do not own 200-600mm (planning to rent and test it myself) but the images posted here are soft regardless if they have taken with A9 or 7iv. Some are sharp, probably taken from a close distance. They look like taken with a Tamron 150-600MM. Or maybe it is a user "error", I see a lot of pictures taken with the 600mm f4 and they also look like crap. I understand a lot of people hate to hear this and I did not make a lot of friends here but I'm not going to praise something that is not that good. Or maybe it is good. I need to test it myself. IF someone cannot take a good sharp picture with the 600/4, good luck taking it with 200-600mm!
Maxxus46 wrote:
ha ha ha! This fella tester_v also known as Vlade past on Flickr is a well known troll . He shoot the sigma 150-600 sport and thinks it's sharp I know better...the Sigma is not only less sharp than the sony 200600G, but also focuses much slower, is 2lbs heavier (front heavy) which doesn't balance well at all. The zoom is a long throw which is terrible. It's also a dust magnet. No thanks!!! You're on the roof forums pal so go away
No reason to run down the Sigma, it is a good lens. I personally can only compare the Sony to the Tamron but that isn't fair considering I shoot the Tammy on a 42mpix 99II and the 200/600 on a 24mixA9. Sony makes great lenses which we all empty our jean pockets for.
Fella tester_v deserved that comment. He has been trolling me and others here , thinking he can hide his tracks. I found him...payback stinks. Realty is that the Sigma is good, but a notch below the sony in both image and build quality. Definitely far from a bad lens...but that's what tester_v wants to hear right? He shouldn't have posted on my Flickr becasue now I'm going to run him down every chance I get. I can be relentless when dealing with Jerks like him. According to members here he has been up to this for a long time. It's time members here stop taking his crap and push back. I didn't ask for his commentary BS. He decided it was fine to bash my work and gear choices. So I decided I'll follow through and push back
mogul wrote:
No reason to run down the Sigma, it is a good lens. I personally can only compare the Sony to the Tamron but that isn't fair considering I shoot the Tammy on a 42mpix 99II and the 200/600 on a 24mixA9. Sony makes great lenses which we all empty our jean pockets for.
"at least you got some keepers with the 1DIII".....I've got a few keepers with the R4/200-600 also....here are just a few out of 102 that I've worked up...hundreds more lay unprocessed in my LR catalogue....
@arbitrage - These are some incredible images. Especially loved the first image of the humming bird!
I also recently purchased A7R4+200-600G. This is my first mirrorless/Sony experience and i use it alongside my Nikon gear. Haven't had enough time to test this combo well enough but here is what i got from my test shots. Problem with this combo seems to be the inconsistent autofocus performance on moving targets. Would like to wait for a while and see if Sony comes up with a firmware fix. Has anyone here had any luck with adapted canon/ sigma glass for BIF?
gannis wrote:
I also recently purchased A7R4+200-600G. This is my first mirrorless/Sony experience and i use it alongside my Nikon gear. Haven't had enough time to test this combo well enough but here is what i got from my test shots. Problem with this combo seems to be the inconsistent autofocus performance on moving targets. Would like to wait for a while and see if Sony comes up with a firmware fix. Has anyone here had any luck with adapted canon/ sigma glass for BIF?
Those are great. As you said, though, it's the lack of consistency, which is why it reminds me of Canon 7DII, which could also deliver great results but you couldn't bet on it. I like me and myself to be the weakest link and my gear to be more reliable than I know I am when it comes to this stuff.
I now use the A7R IV with my Canon 500mm f/4 II and it's great but not as fast as a native setup. IQ beats the Sony zoom, especially with background separation.
johnvanr wrote:
Those are great. As you said, though, it's the lack of consistency, which is why it reminds me of Canon 7DII, which could also deliver great results but you couldn't bet on it. I like me and myself to be the weakest link and my gear to be more reliable than I know I am when it comes to this stuff.
I now use the A7R IV with my Canon 500mm f/4 II and it's great but not as fast as a native setup. IQ beats the Sony zoom, especially with background separation.
The Canon 500 and R5 body should be a great match here soon...
their skill and my luck 
Although back then I posted the series and I was all "look at this shot!," then someone pointed out BA#4 was "slightly out of position" 
I know better...the Sigma is not only less sharp than the sony 200600G, but also focuses much slower, is 2lbs heavier (front heavy) which doesn't balance well at all. The zoom is a long throw which is terrible. It's also a dust magnet. No thanks!!! You're on the roof forums pal so go away
