I bought a 200-600 yesterday morning to photograph a competitive cricket match, I was not happy with the sharpness when I checked at 100% - but perhaps it was atmospheric disturbance, so this morning I did some 'proper' tests. Shot from the same position, cropped to match (600mm has advantage in cropping)
I discovered the 200-600 @ 600mm f6.3 is not as sharp as the 100-400 f5.6 even after it's been cropped in to match - which I assume means I could have shot the cricket on my 100-400 and go sharper images even if I needed to crop.
Is this the general experience, or is there something wrong with my 200-600?
I went through three copies before I got "the" lens. Now my last one is dead sharp, sharper than my 100-400 GM was at 400mm. Keep in mind that there is always sample variation, esp. for zoom lenses.
Jannik Peters wrote:
I went through three copies before I got "the" lens. Now my last one is dead sharp, sharper than my 100-400 GM was at 400mm. Keep in mind that there is always sample variation, esp. for zoom lenses.
Did you test for centering?
I have just returned from the store where I bought it and they gave me a refund, I'm probably not going to bother trying to find a sharp variation
There is definitely lens variance around, my copy at 600mm for example is not as sharp (but not by much) as my 100-400GM+1.4x TC, so I know that I don't have one of the best copies for sure (but I also know that I have a very good copy of the GM, because it's super sharp in all tests I've run).
Funnily enough, my 200-600 is very sharp with the 1.4x TC, where I tend to use it the most, so at the end I decided to keep it (bought it pretty cheaply from Lens Authority).
evaluation with the 1.4x is a good test of the lens, because things like corner issues tend to be magnified with the tc.
i tested several 200-600 lenses with the tc, only 1 was clearly defective, but i didn't need the tc to see the problem, it was an af issue on one side of the image plane... the others were acceptable, but two had slightly better average corners, with the tc.
I'm not overly impressed with my 200-600 either, especially at infinity. But I've had it too long to return to the local shop. I've been interested in trying a Sigma 500mm f4 or Canon 500mm f4 with a tc, just trying to find a good used copy.
I had my 100-400 in for sharpness issues, it was fixed once by Sony, it was returned still soft, so back to Sony and five weeks later I received the 100-400 Monday and it's back to sharp.
I've only had one copy of the 200-600 but I have now owned two copies of the 100-400. This was only because I sold the 100-400 for lack of use when I owned the Canon 100-500 for awhile. After selling the 100-500 I purchased a new copy of the 100-400. I had tested the first copy and this new copy against my 200-600.
My first 100-400 was about equal to the 200-600 @400 when pixel peeping a controlled shot at 300%.
My first 100-400 with 1.4TC was not as good as my 200-600 @560-600.
My second 100-400 is better than my 200-600 @400.
My second 100-400 with 1.4TC is about equal to the 200-600 @560-600.
So I don't know where my 200-600 stands in the scheme of things but my new 100-400 is clearly a better copy than my first one. I was always happy with my first copy but now know there are better ones out there.
I still prefer the 200-600 for my shooting as I'm at f/6.3 vs f/8 at 560(600). 2/3 stop is significant to me. I also prefer the smooth, short zoom throw. I use my 100-400 for semi-macro stuff more than anything and not often for birds.
d4mike wrote:
I'm not overly impressed with my 200-600 either, especially at infinity.
When I’ve used my 200-600 to take shots of the moon it never seems to focus right, even if I put the focus area on the edge it always appears soft. If I manually focus the lens it looks much sharper at this distance.
What body are your shooting with?
Are you sure that label is flat, it looks curved to me??
I have owned 3 200-600's at various times and never had one that didn't make me happy with sharpness wide open but maybe I am a lucky guy I do realize others have had a few bad copies and that the lens does not always play well on the A7rIV body.
Are you testing with AF or MF, are you testing with Continous or Single focus, what type of focus point have you chosen and at what point on the label are you focusing?
What Mode are you in for stabilization 1/2/3 and is your test with it on or off?
dancook wrote:
I bought a 200-600 yesterday morning to photograph a competitive cricket match, I was not happy with the sharpness when I checked at 100% - but perhaps it was atmospheric disturbance, so this morning I did some 'proper' tests. Shot from the same position, cropped to match (600mm has advantage in cropping)
I discovered the 200-600 @ 600mm f6.3 is not as sharp as the 100-400 f5.6 even after it's been cropped in to match - which I assume means I could have shot the cricket on my 100-400 and go sharper images even if I needed to crop.
Is this the general experience, or is there something wrong with my 200-600?
I have had 3 copies of 200-600 and 2 copies of 100-400 with 2 different 1.4x TCs. They are all very sharp. There is variation, but more likely you are going to get a sharp copy. Based on your controlled test, your 2-6 looks soft at 600 for sure.
If early reviews of the Tamron 150-500 come to fruition, that will possibly be a viable alternative for you instead of the 200-600 that didn't work out.
I'm not thrilled with the announced weight of the 150-500 but it's a baby compared to the 200-600.
The 150-500 will be a bit short for birding and won’t be compatible with extenders. Also will top out at 15fps so you lose performance with an A9 or A1. Most are better off getting the 200-600 for these reasons. Also although the 200-600 is larger, it does not extend so is much better balanced. And that short throw zoom ring should not be underestimated… it’s really a joy to use
We have seen enough reports of poor copies of the 200-600 to know it can happen. However, in my local group of photographers there is myself and six others that I know well and we all have acceptably sharp copies of the 200-600 without having to buy multiple copies to get one. The 200-600 is by far the best portable zoom lens that I've owned and the only zoom lens that I've owned that was any better was the Canon 200-400 which is a different beat entirely and not really worth comparing.
I don't think anyone should be deterred from buying the 200-600 and I think if you aren't happy with the lens you have you should immediately return it for another copy as it would be rare to get two bad copies in a row.
Totally agree... Every lense out there from every manufacturer has variation. It's glass and susceptible to minor surface imperfections, impurities etc. so there can be slight differences. Not happy with your copy make sure you exchange it while you can.
arbitrage wrote:
We have seen enough reports of poor copies of the 200-600 to know it can happen. However, in my local group of photographers there is myself and six others that I know well and we all have acceptably sharp copies of the 200-600 without having to buy multiple copies to get one. The 200-600 is by far the best portable zoom lens that I've owned and the only zoom lens that I've owned that was any better was the Canon 200-400 which is a different beat entirely and not really worth comparing.
I don't think anyone should be deterred from buying the 200-600 and I think if you aren't happy with the lens you have you should immediately return it for another copy as it would be rare to get two bad copies in a row....Show more →
I don't see much difference in sharpness with the Tc or without it on my 200-600. It does appear to flare more though, maybe it's just my imagination. When I had the 100-400 with the Tc it did not seem to have a flare issue. Regardless, my 200-600 is very sharp but it's a bit more ornery than my 100-400 and takes a bit more care with the longer focal length.
Something I've noticed with my 200-600 , used with either my A9ii or A1 when it nails the shot the image is very sharp but a lot of shots its just very slightly off to give that softer look . I just wish I could get more consistent nailed shots although I am usually using around 1/250-400 for perched birds depending how horrible the UK lighting is (same as I was using with Nikon D850 200-500). With BIF I'm struggling to get quite as sharp shots as I'd like, this is the only Sony lens I've owned so can't compare .
Renting the 200-600 to test, and I will next rent the 100-400 and see which I prefer. I am using the Sony A1 and have had amazing success with this camera on GM glass, 14, 16-35, 24, 50, 70-200-2, 135, and 400. Reason for looking is I sold the 400. Don't get me wrong I loved it but it was not earning its keep and the money was needed in other parts of the business.
Only about 100 pics so far with the 200-600. So far it seems soft, but only starting the week with it. Better light tomorrow and clearer weather. Will report back after the week and see what I think on the 200-600. I did with a A7R3 own a 100-400 and loved it.
I finally -really- tested my 200-600, in the basement, with huge LED worklights and a tripod. I used a Siemens Star target (12,000 x 12,000 pixels) printed on an 8.5" x 12" sheet.
I didn't get much Moiré (almost none) but I -did- get an expected amount from my 24-105.
The 200-600 was definitely sharper at f/7.1. Sigh...
But the lens resolved the tiny barbules on the feathers in DOF. In real-world images, I'd never suspect the lens was bad.
I do realize others have had a few bad copies and that the lens does not always play well on the A7rIV body.
