Steve Spencer Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
AGeoJO wrote:
Sony 200-600mm lens costs $2,000 and GM 600mm costs $13,000 here is in the US. Both are brand new and for retail. The zoom lens can be had for less and it is widely available. I am not sure over there but I assume that price relation should roughly apply there as well. In other words, it is hard to believe that the GM lens is priced 9X that of the zoom lens.
I understand that completely. That’s where the G 200-600mm lens comes in. Its long end is longer than the 400mm f/4.5 lens. It is heavier, I understand, but combined with the A1, the total package is about the same as the 400mm f/4.5 lens plus the Z9. It is a tad slower but if you use a TC on the 400mm f/.4.5 lens, the aperture is about the same and at 600mm, it is still a tad longer focal length-wise. And it is a zoom lens with a very short zoom throw where you can compose conveniently without putting on or taking off any TC. And that is big in my book.
I am sorry but I fail to see the attraction of that Nikon 400mm f/4.5 lens with the G 200-600mm at hand. Yes, that applies to me. Your mileage may vary and I respect that.
...Show more →
For me that the 400 f/4.5S is 865g (almost 2 lbs) lighter than the 200-600G is a big deal. In fact, the 200-600 G is closer in weight to the 600 GM than it is to the 400 f/4.5. If Sony had a lens like the 400 f/4.5S, I would sell the 200-600 G in a heartbeat for it. Partly a 400 f/4.5 matches my needs very very well. For such a lens I would have two primary uses.
First, I would use the bare lens for shooting my son playing field sports like soccer and the light weight and the fairly wide aperture would be a exactly what I would be looking for. Sure I can shoot the 200-600G for this type of action, but the slow aperture (a whole stop slower) and the big size of the lens are impediments and especially so as the light gets dim toward dusk.
Second, I would use the lens occasionally for wildlife and for this type of shooting I would in most instance use the 1.4X TC. Having the 200-600 G, I think it is a little short of 600mm anyway (and I have heard others suggest the same thing), so we are talking a tiny difference is optical capability between the 400 f/4.5 plus a 1.4x TC and the 200-600 G, and even with the 1.4X TC the 400 f/4.5 is about a pound and a half lighter.
Now it is totally true that unless Nikon builds a smaller camera with close to the capability of their Z9, the smaller size doesn't gain you much as you have to use a really big camera, but if Nikon makes such a camera, which seems at least plausible then the smaller size of the Nikon lenses starts to be a lot more compelling. On the flip side if Sony builds some smaller, slower aperture lenses and they fit my needs (as I hope) I am very likely to stay with Sony. Basically Sony has the cameras I like, but increasingly Nikon has the long lenses that I like. Whoever can get both pieces in place will likely have my loyalty and for now I am going to stick with Sony. In a couple of years, however, if Sony still has only the relatively big 200-600 G in my price range and Nikon has a smaller stacked sensor camera with fast sensor scan speed, then I will likely go Nikon.
|