My pre-order on the 400-800 was accepted by B&H 2 minutes after the pre order processed opened.
Now, B&H shows my lens is backordered.
Does that mean B&H sold all of their first batch in two minutes?
Does anyone else's order look like it's gonna ship on time?
I'll probably just get another 200-600 G. Used, they can be found for less than half of the 400-800's price. The 200-600 is still a lovely lens. I keep selling and buying it, as I don't do too much wildlife, but that could change.
I would prefer a compact 600 prime, like the Nikon 600 f/6.3, but then again, it's going to cost twice as much as the zoom.
It's definitely interesting than we got zooms that reach to 800mm, though.
A9Lon wrote:
My pre-order on the 400-800 was accepted by B&H 2 minutes after the pre order processed opened.
Now, B&H shows my lens is backordered.
Does that mean B&H sold all of their first batch in two minutes?
Does anyone else's order look like it's gonna ship on time?
I did the same. I think the lens won't be available to ship until the 18th, this is what my order shows. Release Date: Mar 18, 2025. Isn't the Sony official date the 21st? If you were to preorder it on their site -- Est. Delivery Mar 21-24.
I'm taking it as... B&H will have the lens in hand a week or so before the 18th, they will start sending out/fulfilling orders on or around the 18th and we should have the lens in hand around the same time Sony is stating on their site. I could be wrong but this is how I see it.
Frederik0711 wrote:
I'll probably just get another 200-600 G. Used, they can be found for less than half of the 400-800's price. The 200-600 is still a lovely lens. I keep selling and buying it, as I don't do too much wildlife, but that could change.
I would prefer a compact 600 prime, like the Nikon 600 f/6.3, but then again, it's going to cost twice as much as the zoom.
It's definitely interesting than we got zooms that reach to 800mm, though.
Oh I dunno, Sigma managed a 500mm f/5.6 at $3K so one can still hold out vague hope for a reasonably priced, fast-ish 600mm.
I'm also still on the fence about the 400-800 and will be sticking with my 2-6 for now considering my ISO often already gets to stupidly high levels if the trees have leaves or the sky is cloudy
A9Lon wrote:
My pre-order on the 400-800 was accepted by B&H 2 minutes after the pre order processed opened.
Now, B&H shows my lens is backordered.
Does that mean B&H sold all of their first batch in two minutes?
Does anyone else's order look like it's gonna ship on time?
hatch1921 wrote:
I did the same. I think the lens won't be available to ship until the 18th, this is what my order shows. Release Date: Mar 18, 2025. Isn't the Sony official date the 21st? If you were to preorder it on their site -- Est. Delivery Mar 21-24.
I'm taking it as... B&H will have the lens in hand a week or so before the 18th, they will start sending out/fulfilling orders on or around the 18th and we should have the lens in hand around the same time Sony is stating on their site. I could be wrong but this is how I see it.
Not the biggest fan of this review because of three issues:
1. There is no need to treat this lens as a 600 f8 and compare it to the 200-600 at f6.3 . Slightly below 600, the 400-800 will be 7.1 and actually show the same FOV as the 200-600. (see ?t=680)
2. The autofocus section is very limited and only covers a large and relatively slow bird.
3. While all reviews right now are by ambassadors the tone with this was was too enthusiastic.
I think the following two did a much better job
I wish the lens was a 6.3 up to 800mm. I still might get it if I find a buyer for my 200-600 and at least have a high quality 800mm until I decide to invest in a big prime. I will decide in the next weeks.
umut_h_toprak wrote:
Not the biggest fan of this review because of three issues:
1. There is no need to treat this lens as a 600 f8 and compare it to the 200-600 at f6.3 . Slightly below 600, the 400-800 will be 7.1 and actually show the same FOV as the 200-600. (see ?t=680)
On this point I was certainly encouraged to know I'd only lose 1/3 of a stop of slight over the 2-6 at around 590mm, but then I wondered just how easy it would be to ensure I was indeed only at 590mm, making this a bit of a moot point. In the field I zoom in and out as needed without really noting the actual focal length (because who has time to stop and look at the lens barrel?) and I'd hazard a guess that, as with my 2-6, I'd spend most of the time at or near the longest end of the range with the 400-800.
So ultimately I'm still on the fence about the 400-800 because of the relatively slow speed and my already-too-high ISO in many situations with my 2-6. I'm definitely waiting for people to have the lens in hand to hear if it's worth the light sacrifice because, as you say, reviews from the myriad Sony Ambassadors do tend to be a bit gushing at times.
The sensor of the current crop of cameras can handle high ISO settings better than that of the previous generation. So, the slight increase doesn't amount to much, if anything, I would say. Plus, AI generated noise reduction softwares, something that wasn't available a few years ago can help a lot in that aspect, as well. I believe this lens will be a favorite wildlife lens from the get go.
umut_h_toprak wrote:
Not the biggest fan of this review because of three issues:
1. There is no need to treat this lens as a 600 f8 and compare it to the 200-600 at f6.3 . Slightly below 600, the 400-800 will be 7.1 and actually show the same FOV as the 200-600. (see ?t=680)
2. The autofocus section is very limited and only covers a large and relatively slow bird.
3. While all reviews right now are by ambassadors the tone with this was was too enthusiastic.
I think the following two did a much better job
I wish the lens was a 6.3 up to 800mm. I still might get it if I find a buyer for my 200-600 and at least have a high quality 800mm until I decide to invest in a big prime. I will decide in the next weeks....Show more →
---------------------------------------------
Steve Perry's review is very good too. The main reason I posted the link above was his comparison of 400-800 at 800mm vs 200-600+1.4X Tc at 840mm.
I have an ignorant question, is f6.3 2/3 stop brighter than f8? The 400-800 will mainly be my airshow lens in typical bright day light hours. For BIF, f8 and 1/2500 or 1/3200 shutter speed during the golden hours may require ISO3000+, a territory I try to avoid if I could.
wordfool wrote:
On this point I was certainly encouraged to know I'd only lose 1/3 of a stop of slight over the 2-6 at around 590mm, but then I wondered just how easy it would be to ensure I was indeed only at 590mm, making this a bit of a moot point. In the field I zoom in and out as needed without really noting the actual focal length (because who has time to stop and look at the lens barrel?) and I'd hazard a guess that, as with my 2-6, I'd spend most of the time at or near the longest end of the range with the 400-800.
So ultimately I'm still on the fence about the 400-800 because of the relatively slow speed and my already-too-high ISO in many situations with my 2-6. I'm definitely waiting for people to have the lens in hand to hear if it's worth the light sacrifice because, as you say, reviews from the myriad Sony Ambassadors do tend to be a bit gushing at times. ...Show more →
It seems like the 200-600 is around 580mm at 600mm, so this is an objective comparison: 580 f6.3 vs 580 f7.1. That's it.
From your explanation, it sounds like you need the 400-800, because you said yourself you would be near 800 most of the time, which the 2-6 cannot do, which means the 2-6 is currently limiting you hard, and even when it does reach 800mm with the 1.4x, you get f9, which is worse than f8, so you get more noise and its IQ suffers quite a bit with the TC (the 4-8 handles TCs much better meaning that the lens itself is a lot sharper, which makes sense, Sony had time to improve the optics).
You cannot even say "but it's 840mm!" because it's really not, it's more like 812mm with the TC 1.4x.
Douglas L wrote:
I have an ignorant question, is f6.3 2/3 stop brighter than f8? The 400-800 will mainly be my airshow lens in typical bright day light hours. For BIF, f8 and 1/2500 or 1/3200 shutter speed during the golden hours may require ISO3000+, a territory I try to avoid if I could.
Another thought I had was that denoise algorithms seem to work better if the subject has enough pixels to start with. I am not sure if this was investigated in a proper benchmark but starting with 2/3 stops higher ISO but higher feather detail due to a better framing could lead to a good outcome still.
octo wrote:
It seems like the 200-600 is around 580mm at 600mm, so this is an objective comparison: 580 f6.3 vs 580 f7.1. That's it.
From your explanation, it sounds like you need the 400-800, because you said yourself you would be near 800 most of the time, which the 2-6 cannot do, which means the 2-6 is currently limiting you hard, and even when it does reach 800mm with the 1.4x, you get f9, which is worse than f8, so you get more noise and its IQ suffers quite a bit with the TC (the 4-8 handles TCs much better meaning that the lens itself is a lot sharper, which makes sense, Sony had time to improve the optics).
You cannot even say "but it's 840mm!" because it's really not, it's more like 812mm with the TC 1.4x. ...Show more →
Are you just speculating or have you done the measurements yourself or are you saying the 600 is not actually 600 and have you measured to check the 400-800 is 800 and not 792mm ?
By my measurement 840 Is 831 and 600 is 594 - which is only going to be noticeable by the armchair warriors.
umut_h_toprak wrote:
Another thought I had was that denoise algorithms seem to work better if the subject has enough pixels to start with. I am not sure if this was investigated in a proper benchmark but starting with 2/3 stops higher ISO but higher feather detail due to a better framing could lead to a good outcome still.
Are you referring to the principle that cropping can have the effect of almost amplifying the noise by increasing the "grain" size? If so then yes, filling the frame without cropping is always preferable.
The problem I have with higher ISO is not so much the noise (which these days is almost a non-issue with software correction) but the fact that dynamic range plummets at higher ISOs. Hit ISO 6400 (where I often am under tree canopy) and the DR of an A1 is in single digits IIRC.
wordfool wrote:
Are you referring to the principle that cropping can have the effect of almost amplifying the noise by increasing the "grain" size? If so then yes, filling the frame without cropping is always preferable.
The problem I have with higher ISO is not so much the noise (which these days is almost a non-issue with software correction) but the fact that dynamic range plummets at higher ISOs. Hit ISO 6400 (where I often am under tree canopy) and the DR of an A1 is in single digits IIRC.
No I actually had in mind the edge data one would get by having more pixels on the target which the denoise algorithm would use to bring out the real detail. I don't know much about the internal technicalities of denoise algorithms but it makes sense to me that seeing some noisy feather detail is a better starting point than a cleaner image with less detail. Your point on the noise grain size is also valid.
Also, your point on dynamic range is very important. I have not considered it sufficiently for bird photography and I feel I should.
With A1 I try to stick to ISO4000 at a maximum. If I am in shadows I use a very low shutter speed at max fps and pick a few good shots from a burst. No action photography in those conditions for me. This one was with 1/320 or something in that range https://www.instagram.com/p/C-gBYHjKNYQ/?img_index=1
I think this lens will excel in good conditions as a very good way of getting to 800mm. For me the comparisons to 200-600+1.4x do not make sense as the autofocus and image quality are both way worse compared to the naked lens. I have the TC and ended up using it only on handful of occasions.
