Bryan Holliday wrote:
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.
From 3:05 on Gordon Laing's video it has one 1/4 and one 3/8.
Choderboy wrote:
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.
I agree with you, not the best example and some post processing sloppiness in the image above. The majority of the images IMO appear to be sharp with lots of great details. I'm just as anxious and excited as everyone else to have the lens arrive so we can shoot it, test it, and cast judgement.
Here's a couple more from his gallery I really liked-- all credit goes to Mark Galer for sharing out the shots.
If you watch the video he does actually say "best wildlife lens right now". Regardless it seems like a great option for wildlife. I'd still keep my 70-350G (on RV) for hiking but dedicated times I'm going out for wildlife I'm looking forward to this lens.
j4nu wrote:
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
Better RAWs: https://we.tl/t-sAc6Yjoa33
from this french review (very nice 600mm vs 800mm comparison, also with TCs):
So, I have the 200-600mm lens and I've preordered the 400-800mm. I often use the 200-600 at close range near the mfd. Am I concerned that the 4 to 8 will not be able to match the 2 to 6? Nope. Here's why: Did a little test with my 200-600 today. Using an A9, the mfd from a target to the sensor mark on the camera was 2338mm. So, a little better than the 2.4m specs. Zoomed to 600mm, the fov was 170mm wide with a diagonal of 204mm. Using a lens focal length calculator, the effective focal length of the 200-600mm lens is 409mm (magnification was calculated at 0.21x which is a little better than the spec of 0.2x).
Yeah, I knew the focus breathing was bad, but not this bad. Now, admittedly, the calculator said to use the front lens element. I did not at first, but when I changed that value to the working distance rather than the sensor distance, the calculator gave the focal length as 350mm.
I believe one of the many YouTube commentators mentioned that the focus breathing on the 400-800mm is much better. So, I'm thinking I can actually shoot at the mfd of the 200-600mm with the 400-800 and get higher magnification. Plus, the 400-800 will have the same aperture of f/6.3 if the focal length is less than 480mm. Once I get the lens, I will perform a similar test.
Oh, and one more point. "Someone" noticed that Mark Galer said the 400-800mm used XD linear focus motors and asked him if that was a fact. He replied, "Yes".
MFDs and magnifications/focal lengths are normally determined from the imaging plane.
Besides magnification, the problem with a long MFD is that in a rocky or brush/tree-heavy terrain you cannot always back up and get a good line of sight and composition.
evanhanded wrote:
Oh, and one more point. "Someone" noticed that Mark Galer said the 400-800mm used XD linear focus motors and asked him if that was a fact. He replied, "Yes".
It certainly has faster and dual linear motors. But from Sony's marketing material "precision linear motors" I take it that they aren't of the XD flavor, as marketing material for all the lenses that do have those also mention them by the XD name.
evanhanded wrote:
So, I have the 200-600mm lens and I've preordered the 400-800mm. I often use the 200-600 at close range near the mfd. Am I concerned that the 4 to 8 will not be able to match the 2 to 6? Nope. Here's why: Did a little test with my 200-600 today. Using an A9, the mfd from a target to the sensor mark on the camera was 2338mm. So, a little better than the 2.4m specs. Zoomed to 600mm, the fov was 170mm wide with a diagonal of 204mm. Using a lens focal length calculator, the effective focal length of the 200-600mm lens is 409mm (magnification was calculated at 0.21x which is a little better than the spec of 0.2x).
Yeah, I knew the focus breathing was bad, but not this bad. Now, admittedly, the calculator said to use the front lens element. I did not at first, but when I changed that value to the working distance rather than the sensor distance, the calculator gave the focal length as 350mm.
I believe one of the many YouTube commentators mentioned that the focus breathing on the 400-800mm is much better. So, I'm thinking I can actually shoot at the mfd of the 200-600mm with the 400-800 and get higher magnification. Plus, the 400-800 will have the same aperture of f/6.3 if the focal length is less than 480mm. Once I get the lens, I will perform a similar test.
Oh, and one more point. "Someone" noticed that Mark Galer said the 400-800mm used XD linear focus motors and asked him if that was a fact. He replied, "Yes"....Show more →
In order for a lens to show no focus breathing, the focal length needs to decrease as the lens is focused at closer distances. A well designed lens will have no focus breathing, which means the FOV (not the focal length) is constant as the lens is focused on objects at different distances. The specified focal length of a lens is based on its FOV when focused at infinity.
evanhanded wrote:
So, I have the 200-600mm lens and I've preordered the 400-800mm. I often use the 200-600 at close range near the mfd. Am I concerned that the 4 to 8 will not be able to match the 2 to 6? Nope. Here's why: Did a little test with my 200-600 today. Using an A9, the mfd from a target to the sensor mark on the camera was 2338mm. So, a little better than the 2.4m specs. Zoomed to 600mm, the fov was 170mm wide with a diagonal of 204mm. Using a lens focal length calculator, the effective focal length of the 200-600mm lens is 409mm (magnification was calculated at 0.21x which is a little better than the spec of 0.2x).
Yeah, I knew the focus breathing was bad, but not this bad. Now, admittedly, the calculator said to use the front lens element. I did not at first, but when I changed that value to the working distance rather than the sensor distance, the calculator gave the focal length as 350mm.
I believe one of the many YouTube commentators mentioned that the focus breathing on the 400-800mm is much better. So, I'm thinking I can actually shoot at the mfd of the 200-600mm with the 400-800 and get higher magnification. Plus, the 400-800 will have the same aperture of f/6.3 if the focal length is less than 480mm. Once I get the lens, I will perform a similar test.
Oh, and one more point. "Someone" noticed that Mark Galer said the 400-800mm used XD linear focus motors and asked him if that was a fact. He replied, "Yes"....Show more →
dclark already addressed the 'focus breathing'.
Sony do provide MM, Maximum Magnification spec. That's what matters.
It's already been stated that it is 0.23X at 400mm.
MM reduces as you zoom then increases again at 800, but is less than 0.23X. We don't know what actual MM at 800mm is yet. The 200-600 is 0.2X.
So it's a little more on the 400-800, but you will only notice if you shoot a tape measure.
I have Sigma 500 f4.
The screw centres are about 15mm apart.
I'm pretty sure it was reported that Sigma used the same bolt pattern, and sizes as Canon 400 2.8.
Apparently that same bolt pattern has been commonly used.
So fair chance Sigma have used it again.
robert614 wrote:
Thx for the pics
Yeah, looks like the space between the screws on the 400-800 are slightly closer together vs. the ones on the 600mm ☹️
dclark wrote:
In order for a lens to show no focus breathing, the focal length needs to decrease as the lens is focused at closer distances. A well designed lens will have no focus breathing, which means the FOV (not the focal length) is constant as the lens is focused on objects at different distances. The specified focal length of a lens is based on its FOV when focused at infinity.
I guess it depends on how you want to define focus breathing. I've seen it defined as the reduction in focal length as the lens is focused on closer subjects...and that is how I used it in my comments. I do understand that more recent models of Sony cameras can compensate for any effects of focus breathing on FOV to keep videographers happy. So, I would call a lens well designed that kept the FOV near constant while limiting the loss of focal length when focusing on closer subjects.
j4nu wrote:
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
I think those photos are rubbish, but you can't make any descitions upon them because atleast 1 thing:
* Way to slow shutterspeed is used 1/250-1/500 at 800mm on an Highmegapixel camera (A7RV) for moving subjects
Choderboy wrote:
Woohoo! Price in Australia is good!
Several shops have pre order for AU $4399. (US $2,771)
Tax in Aus is not optional so that price includes tax.
200-600 at release was $3300 and was almost immediately available for $3000 then $2900.
Soon after $2700. I bought one for $2093 - US $1318.
Currently available for $2269 - US $1,429
So a similar pattern will see 400-800 for AU$4000 - US$2,522 quickly.
Actually, that is the price on the Sony Australia website...
