Hard to imagine it would perform like primes in this category. I’d prefer a 600 5.6 or a 700 6.3 prime. Wish Sony would do more high quality lightweight mid aperture primes like Nikon. The 200-600 is not a small lens. I don’t see a 400-800 being much different in size.
What could this lens possibly have over the existing 200-600mm?
A refresh of the 200-600G could have brought some exitement, or is this lens meant as a 200-600G refresh, only adding 200mm at the long end at the expense of 200mm at the wide end?
I hope Sony finds a path to a few more ambitious wildlife lenses.
Physics being physics, I'm not sure how "compact" an 800mm f/8 lens could be unless it uses Fresnel elements. Makes me think the aperture will be smaller than f/8 similar to the Canon 200-800 f/9.
Interesting. In my opinion, it's all going to come down to image quality. I often use the 200-600 with the TC 1.4, which gives me 280-840 f9. Most of the time, I would rather be at f9 vs f8 and have the 280-400 range available to me. So the 200-800 at 800mm f8 would have to have a noticeably better IQ than the 200-600mm + TC 1.4 at 840mm f9.
Personally, if it was a 200-800mm f8 with better IQ than the Canon 200-800mm f9 I could see myself being very interested in it to gain the zoom range without having to deal with a TC.
I'd love to have a good zoom or switchable TC solution that gave me a good 800mm. However I'm not interested in this lens if it exists. 600mm will be darker than 6.3 and that is a step down from the 200-600 which I'm using. Not a good tradeoff in my opinion.
A bit like a less ambitious canon 200-800 really. It may be that they saw that lens do well in the market and are trying to do something similar.
ChrisMak wrote:
What could this lens possibly have over the existing 200-600mm?
A refresh of the 200-600G could have brought some exitement, or is this lens meant as a 200-600G refresh, only adding 200mm at the long end at the expense of 200mm at the wide end?
I hope Sony finds a path to a few more ambitious wildlife lenses.
With that said, to answer this question, if I put a 1.4TC on 200-600 both quality and AF suffer greatly. I never could make it work well. This zoom will likely do welll at 800mm (otherwise it is pointless), so there is this advantage. If one is okay with f7.1 or f8 at 600mm, then why not...
twodees wrote:
A 200-600 f5.6 GM would make more sense.
A lens like a 200-600mm f5.6 is would fit my desription of "more ambitious wildlife lens", and if done well, I would consider it, certainly if it were a GM lens.
It seems only Nikon at least tries to bring something in the mid segment between consumer class and exotic glass, and is succesfull doing so.
I guess Sony and Canon will not. Perhaps a 400mm f4GM has sóme chance of ever materializing...
ChrisMak wrote:
Perhaps a 400mm f4GM has sóme chance of ever materializing...
With the way the 300GM takes the 1.4TC, I don't see much point to making a 400/4 other than the possibility to get to a decent 800 f/8 with the 2xTC which you can't do with the 300GM unless you stack TCs and restrict your shooting to close range as it won't focus out very far.
jeffbuzz wrote:
Physics being physics, I'm not sure how "compact" an 800mm f/8 lens could be unless it uses Fresnel elements. Makes me think the aperture will be smaller than f/8 similar to the Canon 200-800 f/9.
True, it is going to have to have a front element like the Canon 400DOII which is a decent size. Maybe the "f/8" will be fudged a bit and be somewhere closer to f/9 in reality.
wow! arbitrage now into the "rumors" Make a channel on the Tube, I'm sure you can share a lot of real experience, it seems you are no bullshit guy, and a good opinion would be valuable in our days of "will do/say anything for money".
arbitrage wrote:
True, it is going to have to have a front element like the Canon 400DOII which is a decent size. Maybe the "f/8" will be fudged a bit and be somewhere closer to f/9 in reality.
Yeah, fudged like "F/8" actually meaning T/11. I guess we'll see. Always interesting to see how theory translates to reality.
arbitrage wrote:
With the way the 300GM takes the 1.4TC, I don't see much point to making a 400/4 other than the possibility to get to a decent 800 f/8 with the 2xTC which you can't do with the 300GM unless you stack TCs and restrict your shooting to close range as it won't focus out very far.
I do remember a véry useful 560mm f5.6 coming out of the Canon 400DOII f4. I loved that lens with the 1.4TC on, not with the 2xTC btw.
If Sony could make a next generation 400mm f4GM with 300GM dna, then I would be interested with the 1.4TC in the bag.
I guess I just love a special lens, that brings a bit extra.
If the 400-800 is light and sharp, it can be a very good lens for airshows, f8 during typical airshow hours is manageable. I will sell my 200-600 which is now only used for airshow.
I hope Sony will make a light 800 F6.3 like the Nikon. My 600GM+1.4TC feels heavy after holding it for a few minutes. I rarely rarely use tripod...
Make a channel on the Tube, I'm sure you can share a lot of real experience, it seems you are no bullshit guy, and a good opinion would be valuable in our days of "will do/say anything for money".