In contrast, the 200-600 has a 2.4 meter MFD, giving 0.2x magnification at 600mm. The 400-800's highest magnification is actually at 400mm, where it gets 0.23x magnification (though from the reviews I've seen sharpness is best in the 600-800mm range).
This is a bit disappointing to me, since I regularly use the 200-600 with 1.4x converter at minimum focus distance. For small, close birds, I'll get significantly less magnification than with the bare 400-800.
greeneggs wrote:
I haven't seen the minimum focus distances (MFDs) posted in this thread, so I'll add them here for reference. Copied from Steve Perry's video,
In contrast, the 200-600 has a 2.4 meter MFD, giving 0.2x magnification at 600mm. The 400-800's highest magnification is actually at 400mm, where it gets 0.23x magnification (though from the reviews I've seen sharpness is best in the 600-800mm range).
This is a bit disappointing to me, since I regularly use the 200-600 with 1.4x converter at minimum focus distance. For small, close birds, I'll get significantly less magnification than with the bare 400-800. ...Show more →
Where did you find the info that the 0.23x is at 400mm? I was wondering about this as some of these zooms do have MM at the short end. Do you know what the MM is at 600 and 800?
This is always the downside of a lens with native focal length vs similar lens using a TC to get to that same focal length. Using TCs usually gets you a higher MM. Using a 400GM with 2xTC gets much better MM than a 600GM with 1.4TC.
This is how Canon pulled off such a short MFD and high MM with their RF800/5.6 as it is really just a RF400/2.8 with 2xTC elements added in the rear.
nmerc_photos wrote:
Can anyone explain MM (maximum magnification) like I'm 5?
I thought in Steve's video he was saying that the 400-800 had better MM than say a 600GM + 1.4x or even the 800PF.
But it seems that the 400-800 has it's MM at 400mm, not 800mm where I think most people will be using it.
My main interest is in comparing the 400-800 to the 800PF, so if it has better MM at 800mm, that would be a real treat.
Basically, how large an object will appear in the frame at the minimum focus distance. Macro lenses go 1:1 (1X), so an object will be life sized, ie. the same size on the sensor as it is in real life. 1:2 (0.5X) would be half life size, and so on.
It looks like the Nikon 800PF has a minimum focus distance of 5m for 0.16X.
The Sony 400-800 has a variable MFD, so it's mag ratio will vary with focal length. The minimum focus distance at 800mm is 3.5m, so it will have a better mag ratio, though I'm in no position to calculate what that actually is, due to the fact that lenses breathe at minimum focus distance (shorten their actual focal length) and I suck at math...
I should also note that I don't shoot long lenses, or the types of subjects that require them, so I have no idea how often one would get close to MFD to, say, a bird or an insect at 800mm. A more knowledgeable member of the board will no doubt be able to offer more insight.
I don't know much about it either but I've heard that although mathematically a 600GM may have a shallower DOF than a 400GM at equal distances, if you can get within minimal focusing distance using them, the subject in frame of the 400GM will fill the frame more both because it has a closer minimal focusing distance and a slightly greater magnification. The 400GM would then have a shallower DOF in that case. But maybe I've heard wrong.
Dave Sanders wrote:
Basically, how large an object will appear in the frame at the minimum focus distance. Macro lenses go 1:1 (1X), so an object will be life sized, ie. the same size on the sensor as it is in real life. 1:2 (0.5X) would be half life size, and so on.
It looks like the Nikon 800PF has a minimum focus distance of 5m for 0.16X.
The Sony 400-800 has a variable MFD, so it's mag ratio will vary with focal length. The minimum focus distance at 800mm is 3.5m, so it will have a better mag ratio, though I'm in no position to calculate what that actually is, due to the fact that lenses breathe at minimum focus distance (shorten their actual focal length) and I suck at math...
I should also note that I don't shoot long lenses, or the types of subjects that require them, so I have no idea how often one would get close to MFD to, say, a bird or an insect at 800mm. A more knowledgeable member of the board will no doubt be able to offer more insight. ...Show more →
Thanks for the explanation!
To your last point - I do shoot these types of subjects often, and my biggest gripe was the 800PF's MFD of 5m (16.4'). I found that often times, subjects would get inside that distance and it would cause frustration and lost shots.
One of the most exciting parts of the 400-800 is the 3.5m (11.5') MFD. If it happens to also have better MM at 800mm, that would be excellent too.
nmerc_photos wrote:
One of the most exciting parts of the 400-800 is the 3.5m (11.5') MFD. If it happens to also have better MM at 800mm, that would be excellent too.
At 800mm it will have higher MM than the 800PF.
At 400mm it will be higher again.
So the advice was use the lens at 400 for the example of small birds.
The advice completely ignores something though: Will the small bird allow you to get close enough, ie almost 1.7m?
The important information is the dip at 600.
Zooming in from 400mm, when close to MFD, you run into a problem, ie going below MFD.
The 800PF is typical for any 'super telephoto' prime, excepting the recent (Canon 800 and 1200.)
Their 'welded on' Teleconverters, a term used by some long term Canon users as well as users of other brands,
look a little better if MM is something you want.
For the rest, 0.15X to 0.17X is the range. Someone posted a list in the past week, maybe in one of The Sigma 300-600 threads.
The Sigma 300-600 :
Minimum Focusing Distance 280(W)-450(T)cm / 110.3(W)-177.2(T)in.
Maximum Magnification Ratio 1: 6 at f=470mm (ie, 0.166X)
They don't provide MM at 600mm.
I believe correct formula is:
0.23X MM. 35mm sensor. 35 / 0.23 = 152mm. A 152mm Bird will fill the frame.
0.17X MM. 35mm sensor. 35 / 0.17 = 206mm. A 206mm Bird will fill the frame.
0.15X MM. 35mm sensor. 35 / 0.15 = 233mm. A 206mm Bird will fill the frame.
In olden times speak, 6, 8 or 9 inches.
Canon RF 800 5.6 is 0.34X. A 103mm Bird will fill the frame. 4 inches!
MFD is 2.6m / 8.5 feet. Again, getting within 2.6m of a small Bird may be quite challenging
If people are wondering what the AF looks like (on my camera) after the A1 firmware updates, a lot of these shots seem to have the same look, which is say not crisp. I think we will need more shots to assess the sharpness of the lens because these look like they were gimped.
scrappydog wrote:
If people are wondering what the AF looks like (on my camera) after the A1 firmware updates, a lot of these shots seem to have the same look, which is say not crisp. I think we will need more shots to assess the sharpness of the lens because these look like they were gimped.
Out of curiosity, is your A1 performing better now after you did the deep reset as suggested by Geoff @arbitrage in a different thread?
In case anyone is looking Pre-order just became available again at Best Buy as of the time of posting. Was sold out. Says will ship by March 21st. So they must know they have a certain number in route I guess in this second batch.
scrappydog wrote:
If people are wondering what the AF looks like (on my camera) after the A1 firmware updates, a lot of these shots seem to have the same look, which is say not crisp. I think we will need more shots to assess the sharpness of the lens because these look like they were gimped.
I also found some RAWs from another review site, but they are even worse ...
IMHO, Mark Galer is one of the more straight talking ambassadors.
He does like some PP though.
Check this specific image from the Ultra High Def gallery. https://flic.kr/p/2qNUxRJ
ISO6400. It's good to see high ISO results for the purpose of seeing high ISO results. Not so good for checking lens sharpness.
We don't know what PP was done.
It's 5616 pixels on the longest side. Good bet it was taken in Medium Size.
Look at the border of the bird's back. That looks like sharpening or noise software artefacts.
I don't see how that image is any more useful than posting an image from an Olympus OM-1.
Maybe that's how he sleeps at night. "I tell the truth, but if you make decisions on images I post with no details regarding
how they were achieved, other than Tv, Av, Focal length and ISO, that's on you."
hatch1921 wrote:
Have a look at Mark Galer's gallery, looks pretty sharp to me.
I would say the images are coming out of the camera / lens combo pretty sharp to end up the way the look after post processing. I don't think they look overly sharpened or heavily processed. I 'm sure he ran them through DXO Pure Raw or something along those lines. Unless I really fill the frame, I typically crop around 6000x4000, pretty close to the sizes he's sharing. Of course we will all have to draw our own conclusions but for me, if Steve Perry or Mark Galer says it's sharp, I'll take their word for it.
It's possible the images in the gallery link of soft shots, the lens might have some issues? The shutter speeds were pretty low in most of the images as well, maybe this impacted the end results? I know my first copy of the 200-600 was a complete POS, I had to return it for the one I have now, it's super sharp. I wouldn't be surprised there are copies out there which have some issues, it happens.
I just know, I'm excited to give the lens a try, hopefully they will get them shipped sooner than later. If the lens sucks, the 200-600 will stick around a little while longer.
IMHO, that is oversharpened, over processed.
Moot point though. As I already posted, it's ISO 6400.
Again, IMHO,for testing a body, OK. For testing a lens, not useful.
Yeah, I also agree Mark's photos are a bit overprocessed, to my taste at least, to evaluate lens qualities.
Anyways, I've found these RAWs at fotopolis.pl, but as I said they are only so-so in my opinion (~4 gb): https://files.fotopolis.pl/Sony-FE-400-800-RAW.zip
Does anyone have a photo of the bottom of the lens foot? I’m wondering what the screw holes are like. Are they both ¼ or is one of them ⅜ and will require a bushing? Thanks.
