AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #17 · Another look at the G 200-600mm lens | |
ChrisMak wrote:
A version II of this lens would be very welcome!
You make a case for the fe200-600g lens with passion, and although I was critical towards it when it was the only lens I had with the A1, I am more positive about it since having had the 600GM for 1,5 yrs now.
The thing is, the 200-600g is not a high end prime lens, and it cannot perform at that level, AF wise or IQ wise.
Letting that expectation go though, and taking it for its merits, it is a very good lens, certainly for the money. I sold it quickly after getting the 600GM, but I am considering getting a new copy for travel.
Now to the big question: when not considering size/weight and ultimate AF performance, and intending to use the lens at 600mm most of the time, would you choose this lens over the 300GM+2xTC?...Show more →
Chris, that's an excellent but tough to answer question. Here is the long answer. I bought both lenses at the same time and they were delivered on the same day a few years back. I was convinced that the G 200-600mm would be short lived in my lens line-up. But to my surprise it has stayed there until now and I took it out on a regular basis. In the beginning, I really felt more sure-footed of using a zoom lens with a really nice zoom throw. A lot times, I started out with a shorter focal length of the zoom range to easily located the target and immediately upon getting the target in focus, I zoom in to whatever FL is best for the composition. And that goes for stationary and in-flight target. That feature weighs itself in gold, especially in the beginning. Handling a large and yes, relatively heavy GM 600mm with a narrow field of view, let's be honest requires some skill. And my age is creeping up. I couldn't handle the GM 600mm without any support while I still can with the G 200-600mm.
And, I am sure it has to do with the local or whatever shooting circumstances I have been in. As you know, I was in Costa Rica in January of this year. Boy, I am glad I had that lens, in addition of the GM 600mm, there are a lot cases where I would prefer getting images at less than 400-500mm and of course, that's were the G 200-600mm lens delivers in spades.
Back to your original question, judging by the weight and size, the faster aperture, the 300mm is the one to beat and no, the 200-600mm is left behind. Yes, you can attach one of the 2 TCs or even both TCs combined to change the FL (I posted my findings of using stacked TCs in a different thread) but putting a TC or TCs on and taking them off is not that convenient compared to turning a zoom ring. Especially if you have to do that while shooting somewhere in a hot and sticky outside like in the rainforest. The degradation of the optical and AF performance of the 300mm GM is minimal but it is there, especially in the case of the 2X TC. In my opinion, the 2 lenses are getting close in both features. Again, in real circumstances and only in my opinion. My copy of the G 200-600mm is stellar and I am judging my opinion based on that.
I will be going on a trip where I need a longish lens for large birds and the distance is not that large. It is not the speed of the AF that matters but the lighting quality that matters. Hence, I will be taking the 300mm with both TCs on that trip, which is not strictly for birding. I prefer a smaller size and lighter weight in addition to that.
As you can guess, my short answer to that is, it depends on travel, and shooting circumstances. You cannot go wrong with either. I consider myself fortunate to be able to choose which lens is I thought would be best to perform at certain circumstances.
Thanks,
Joshua
|
