ruthenium wrote:
Theoretically, a M43 system with the focal length fl mm and the aperture f and a FF system with the focal length 2 x fl mm and the aperture 2 x f should have equivalent DOF. To quote from the link suggested by Daran: "the 50mm f/2 (M43) lens is giving ... the same depth-of-field as a 100mm f/4 lens is on Full Frame." It is correct to expect that, e.g. the 300 f4 (600 mm f8 FF equivalent) should have a greater DOF vs the FF 600 mm at 6.3. Whereas one can close the aperture on a FF system to increase the DOF, one cannot open the aperture beyond the fastest f value on a M43 system.
Note that a greater DOF may or may not be beneficial. To me, the birds often look better when the background is smooth and out-of-focus. This also seems to be the case in the images you liked, obtained at 600 mm and f4 (shallow DOF) vs 600 mm and f6.3....Show more →
Hi Ruthenium.
I Completely agree with you. By the way, are you liking your new 200-600?
I Completely agree with you. By the way, are you liking your new 200-600?
Best
Thank you for asking! I do like this new lens. After comparing my older 100-400 vs the new 200-600, I find the latter has a better IQ in the central (approximately APS-C -sized) area. There seems to be more sharpness and microcontrast in the details in the images produced by the 200-600. See, for example: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1620963/1#15894864
I also noticed a difference in focus acquisition, The 200-600 makes me feel like it is focusing faster than the 100-400. Overall, the AF behavior is more reliable on the 200-600. Thus, for wildlife, the 200-600 is now my obvious choice over the 100-400. The more time I spend with the 200-600, the more I am wondering if I will be using the 100-400 much in the future. My travel lens kit is now 16-35 GM, Tamron 35-150, and the 200-600 GM.
I spent some time lately looking for a holster bag for A1 + 200-600. The one I purchased is a perfect fit for this camera system: Think Tank Photo Digital Holster 30 V2.0 (albeit without the hood!). Two days ago, I hiked about 12 km with the A1 + 200-600 in the holster (plus a small backpack) and was quite satisfied with the experience.
ruthenium wrote:
Thank you for asking! I do like this new lens. After comparing my older 100-400 vs the new 200-600, I find the latter has a better IQ in the central (approximately APS-C -sized) area. There seems to be more sharpness and microcontrast in the details in the images produced by the 200-600. See, for example: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1620963/1#15894864
I also noticed a difference in focus acquisition, The 200-600 makes me feel like it is focusing faster than the 100-400. Overall, the AF behavior is more reliable on the 200-600. Thus, for wildlife, the 200-600 is now my obvious choice over the 100-400. The more time I spend with the 200-600, the more I am wondering if I will be using the 100-400 much in the future. My travel lens kit is now 16-35 GM, Tamron 35-150, and the 200-600 GM.
I spent some time lately looking for a holster bag for A1 + 200-600. The one I purchased is a perfect fit for this camera system: Think Tank Photo Digital Holster 30 V2.0 (albeit without the hood!). Two days ago, I hiked about 12 km with the A1 + 200-600 in the holster (plus a small backpack) and was quite satisfied with the experience....Show more →
Nice to hear that! It is not bad at all for a G lens Best quality per buck in my mind. I also had the 100-400 GM but I finally sold it becuase of the extending zoom. Never felt it comfortable on my hands.
I'm a little intrigued by the Tamrom 35-150. Are you happy with it on the A1?
JeyB wrote:
Nice to hear that! It is not bad at all for a G lens Best quality per buck in my mind. I also had the 100-400 GM but I finally sold it becuase of the extending zoom. Never felt it comfortable on my hands.
I'm a little intrigued by the Tamrom 35-150. Are you happy with it on the A1?
In short, yes, for what I do, which is travel photography for the most part. The opportunity to capture it all from 35 to 150 mm is very useful. I especially like the long end of the Tamron. The IQ at 150 mm is good for cropping to easily extend the reach to 200 mm and even beyond. For example, the attached image is a 10.8 MP crop from the 50 MP 150 mm image (the effective focal length is ca 300 mm). Despite the heavy crop, the image still looks useable. The gap between the Tamron 35-150 and the Sony 200-600 would be hardly noticeable in practice (except in those special situations when one needs a fast lens to use at 200 mm and f/2.8). I do feel uneasy recommending the Tamron to others, though, because it is a heavy lens. I think this is one of those choices where there is not much middle ground between loving it and hating it. Few photographers are probably going to be indifferent about the Tamron 35-150.
