Many of us value a zoom far more than a prime. A fixed 600mm or 800mm is often useless when a subject gets closer rapidly. Changing teleconverters is likewise slow to do.
I'm not happy with the Canon 200-800 at the long end nor any of the xxx-600 lenses with a 1.4x TC. If Sony can make a 400-800 with a better IQ at 800mm than those options it will be a very good lens to have. Of course it is not going to be equivalent to a prime, but somewhere in between would be nice. 100-400 and 400-800 would be a good pair.
EB-1 wrote:
Many of us value a zoom far more than a prime. A fixed 600mm or 800mm is often useless when a subject gets closer rapidly. Changing teleconverters is likewise slow to do.
I'm not happy with the Canon 200-800 at the long end nor any of the xxx-600 lenses with a 1.4x TC. If Sony can make a 400-800 with a better IQ at 800mm than those options it will be a very good lens to have. Of course it is not going to be equivalent to a prime, but somewhere in between would be nice. 100-400 and 400-800 would be a good pair.
I also think that these in-between less expensive G zooms (and the Nikon/Canon equivalents) fill a niche with people who don't want/need/or can afford a giant prime. That and they can be the gateway drug to a big prime--I know a lot of people who started with a 200-600 and moved the 600GM. So there is a pretty good niche for lenses like these.
Jan 28, 2025 at 09:46 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Douglas L wrote:
I am not an engineer by any means so what I am saying may not be logical. Given how good the 300 GM is with 2X TC, shouldn't it be relatively easy for Sony to make a light/compact 600mm F5.6? And If they could make a light/compact 600 f5.6, how difficult is it to make a relatively light/compact 800 f6.3? I will buy an 800 f6.3 in a heart beat.
I am not an engineer either, but I would suspect that although they could make a relatively light/compact 800 f/6.3 I am not sure they could make one as light/compact as the Nikon lens without the PF or similar technology. Sony typically either makes lenses that are as light/compact as the Nikon or Canon counterparts or builds something a little different. Almost always they either make a very competitive lens and compete directly or they decide not to compete directly. I think Sony is unlikely to build either a 600 f/6.3 or 800 f/6.3 unless they develop something like PF/DO technology or some other technology. We might get a 400 f/4.5, however, or maybe a 500 f/5 that is relatively light/compact and that sort of lens might not need PF/DO to compete. The Nikon 400 f/4.5 after all does not have that technology.
EB-1 wrote:
Many of us value a zoom far more than a prime. A fixed 600mm or 800mm is often useless when a subject gets closer rapidly. Changing teleconverters is likewise slow to do.
I'm not happy with the Canon 200-800 at the long end nor any of the xxx-600 lenses with a 1.4x TC. If Sony can make a 400-800 with a better IQ at 800mm than those options it will be a very good lens to have. Of course it is not going to be equivalent to a prime, but somewhere in between would be nice. 100-400 and 400-800 would be a good pair.
EBH ...Show more → jhapeman wrote:
I also think that these in-between less expensive G zooms (and the Nikon/Canon equivalents) fill a niche with people who don't want/need/or can afford a giant prime. That and they can be the gateway drug to a big prime--I know a lot of people who started with a 200-600 and moved the 600GM. So there is a pretty good niche for lenses like these.
I suppose it depends on age. When I started Canon had a manual focus 600/4.5 that weighed a ton and few could afford. A 300/2.8 was a big deal for most non-pros. Sony made TVs and Walkmans.
It seems like many are moving towards the tele zooms since they are lighter weight.
I don't see zooms as true replacements for primes and it's up to the user to selct the most apppropriate for each situation. Maybe there will be a 200-600/4 some day but I'll be too weak by then to handle it.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am not an engineer either, but I would suspect that although they could make a relatively light/compact 800 f/6.3 I am not sure they could make one as light/compact as the Nikon lens without the PF or similar technology. Sony typically either makes lenses that are as light/compact as the Nikon or Canon counterparts or builds something a little different. Almost always they either make a very competitive lens and compete directly or they decide not to compete directly. I think Sony is unlikely to build either a 600 f/6.3 or 800 f/6.3 unless they develop something like PF/DO technology or some other technology. We might get a 400 f/4.5, however, or maybe a 500 f/5 that is relatively light/compact and that sort of lens might not need PF/DO to compete. The Nikon 400 f/4.5 after all does not have that technology....Show more →
Sony do have the technology to make small lenses. Look at their version 2 of the 24-70 2.8II, 70-200mm 2.8II, 85mm 1.4II. And their 50mm 1.2 lens is lighter than Nikon and Canon's versions
So even though they do not have PF technology, Sony have the technology to make small, light, and high quality glass.
Jan 28, 2025 at 12:54 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Nacogdoches wrote:
Sony do have the technology to make small lenses. Look at their version 2 of the 24-70 2.8II, 70-200mm 2.8II, 85mm 1.4II. And their 50mm 1.2 lens is lighter than Nikon and Canon's versions
So even though they do not have PF technology, Sony have the technology to make small, light, and high quality glass.
I think that is true in general, but I don't know if they can compete with the PF/Do glass for long telephoto lenses. They haven't done that yet, but I certainly hope they do so in the future.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think that is true in general, but I don't know if they can compete with the PF/Do glass for long telephoto lenses. They haven't done that yet, but I certainly hope they do so in the future.
The 300mm GM is surprisingly small and lightweight.
Jan 28, 2025 at 02:32 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
galenapass wrote:
The 300mm GM is surprisingly small and lightweight.
Yes, it is but no one else has made a 300 f/2.8 PF/DO prime, so they aren't competing with that technology. At least not yet. Nikon did make a very small 300 f/4 PF prime for F mount, but that really isn't a competitor as it is a DSLR lens and a stop slower, way cheaper, etc. Sony has simply not competed at the same focal length and a similar aperture with existing PF/DO lenses. It will be interesting if they do so in the future, and if they do what technology they will bring to that task.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, it is but no one else has made a 300 f/2.8 PF/DO prime, so they aren't competing with that technology. At least not yet. Nikon did make a very small 300 f/4 PF prime for F mount, but that really isn't a competitor as it is a DSLR lens and a stop slower, way cheaper, etc. Sony has simply not competed at the same focal length and a similar aperture with existing PF/DO lenses. It will be interesting if they do so in the future, and if they do what technology they will bring to that task.
Absolutely true, but the 300mm GM makes me think that if Sony did release a competitive lens it too would be light weight and compact using no other technology/approach that what already exists for Sony. To get back to the point of this thread, a generalization was made that Sony can't make small and light long lenses, which they can and the 300mm GM is evidence of that. I am hopeful that a new 400-800mm lens (if the rumor is correct) can also take after the 300mm f/2.8. We shall see. I do wish Sony would be more competitive with Nikon as far as long lenses are concerned.
galenapass wrote:
Absolutely true, but the 300mm GM makes me think that if Sony did release a competitive lens it too would be light weight and compact using no other technology/approach that what already exists for Sony. To get back to the point of this thread, a generalization was made that Sony can't make small and light long lenses, which they can and the 300mm GM is evidence of that. I am hopeful that a new 400-800mm lens (if the rumor is correct) can also take after the 300mm f/2.8. We shall see. I do wish Sony would be more competitive with Nikon as far as long lenses are concerned. ...Show more →
No generalization was made, at least by me, that Sony *can't* make light and long lenses. What I said is that Sony hasn't made lenses that directly compete with PF/DO lenses and they *may* not be able to unless they invest in similar technology or develop other technology and the existence of the 300 f/2.8 GM as nice as it is does not challenge that point, IMO. You may and likely do think otherwise, but let's just agree to disagree on that because until Sony tries to compete with PF/DO lenses neither of us can know.
I don't buy into this Sony couldn't make a smaller lighter 800mm. What Sony did with the 300 f/2.8 is amazing IMO. The weight reduction barely seemed possible. I would have been happy if it were 1.8kg.
Rumours are Sony will be doing something amazing with the 400 f/2.8 II and I suspect that even with built-in 1.4x TC they could get the weight down to 2.2kg. I definitely believe they could offer an 800 f/6.3 that was thus similar weight even sans PF tech.
Would I buy it, no as I have the Nikon 800 PF. Now a lens I'd love to see is 500 f/4.5 + built-in 1.4x. This would come in around 2kg and offer a 700 f/6.3 when needed. I've always preferred the 500 f/4 over 600 f/4 and sucks this was lens that neither Canon or Nikon updated. Nikon should make a 500 f/4.5 twin for the 400 f/4.5. I have the 400 f/4.5 but would sell it in a heartbeat for a 500mm f/4.5
galenapass wrote:
..... To get back to the point of this thread, a generalization was made that Sony can't make small and light long lenses, which they can and the 300mm GM is evidence of that. I am hopeful that a new 400-800mm lens (if the rumor is correct) can also take after the 300mm f/2.8. We shall see. I do wish Sony would be more competitive with Nikon as far as long lenses are concerned.
More accurately, Sony does not, and most likely will not make small and light long lenses that are not consumer class lenses, but that could be called semi-professional lenses, or high mid-end lenses.
That is at least the generalization I was making. This endeavour appears uniquely adopted by Nikon, and the 300GM as well as the coming 400-800mm lens indicate that Sony is not about to change their course and take on Nikon directly.
Now think what you will about a coming slow superzoom 400-800/8 lens and whether you will find performance and IQ compromised by its cost class, or whether you will see it as a perfectly viable alternative to a Nikon 800mm f6.3, or even a 600mm f4 lens, but there is a target group for Nikon's mid-end lenses that see the additional value in a 3500,- 400mm and 5000,- 600mm or 800mm lens.
For those who would like to see Sony (ór Canon) join in Nikon's efforts to offer something inbetween consumer class and exotic class lenses, the coming 400-800mm offers little hope. As good as the 300mm GM may be, and I am sure it is stellar, it is still a bit depressing that you should have to revert to a 300mm lens with a bag of converters because Sony offers no attractive lenses longer than 300mm that are not exotic in size, weight and price. And that is without considering extremely useful built-in TC's with which Olympus and Nikon have been pioneering with great results.
But let's wait and see what the 400-800 will bring, perhaps it will be a very nice lens in its class, and show how Sony is progressing with lens making.
ChrisMak wrote:
For those who would like to see Sony (ór Canon) join in Nikon's efforts to offer something inbetween consumer class and exotic class lenses, the coming 400-800mm offers little hope. As good as the 300mm GM may be, and I am sure it is stellar, it is still a bit depressing that you should have to revert to a 300mm lens with a bag of converters because Sony offers no attractive lenses longer than 300mm that are not exotic in size, weight and price. And that is without considering extremely useful built-in TC's with which Olympus and Nikon have been pioneering with great results.
But let's wait and see what the 400-800 will bring, perhaps it will be a very nice lens in its class, and show how Sony is progressing with lens making....Show more →
I'd love to hear why you think the 200-600 is not an attractive lens with a nom-exotic size, weight and price. To me, it hits on all three. I think it is a great gateway drug for the 300GM. Personally, I would spring for a $4000 200-600GM f/5-f/5.6.
Jan 28, 2025 at 05:51 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Newenglandrocks wrote:
I'd love to hear why you think the 200-600 is not an attractive lens with a nom-exotic size, weight and price. To me, it hits on all three. I think it is a great gateway drug for the 300GM. Personally, I would spring for a $4000 200-600GM f/5-f/5.6.
The Nikon 600 f/6.3 PF is 1,390g, it is 278mm long and has a 106.5mm diameter. The Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 is 2,115g 311mm long with a 111.5mm diameter with the same reach and max aperture. As a mostly happy owner of the 200-600, I would like it to be smaller and lighter. I don't think it is really competitive with the Nikon in size and especially weight, but I do appreciate the Sony is cheaper. It is just, IMO, they aren't competitors.
I don't think the 300 f/2.8 GM is a competitor with the Nikon 600 f/6.3 PF either. The Sony lens with a 2X TC is about $6,550 compared to $4,800 for the Nikon (and I can get it for an education discount of $3,800), so not really in the same price class, IMO. The Sony with the 2X TC is also 1,677g, 307mm long and 124mm in diameter, so bigger than the Nikon lens which isn't too surprising because it is a third of a stop faster. Personally, I see the size and capability of this lens as phenomenal, but I don't see it as evidence that Sony can build a 600 f/6.3 lens as small as the Nikon 600 PF or an 800 f/6.3 as small as the Nikon 800 f/6.3 PF without using PF/DO or some other advance in technology.
I agree with Chris Mak that I don't see Sony competing with the Nikon PF lenses even though I would love to see it, but I also agree with Pixel Perfect that the really exciting lens for me would be a 500 f/4.5 GM built to be as light as possible and I think they could do that using the same approach they took to the 300 f/2.8. I think it would be a super compelling lens, but I don't think it would come cheap. I think it would be something like $7,500, so wouldn't compete on price with the Nikon lenses either.
I really hope that if/when Sony releases a new long lens that it comes with a built in TC.
Having that function with a prime imo would be even more important because swapping a TC on and off is annoying.
Using the Oly 150-400 4.5 with the built in TC is really a pleasure and I really hope Sony comes out with something along those lines but also incorporating some new fancy optics that make it even smaller and lighter than everyone else's glass.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The Nikon 600 f/6.3 PF is 1,390g, it is 278mm long and has a 106.5mm diameter. The Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 is 2,115g 311mm long with a 111.5mm diameter with the same reach and max aperture. As a mostly happy owner of the 200-600, I would like it to be smaller and lighter. I don't think it is really competitive with the Nikon in size and especially weight, but I do appreciate the Sony is cheaper. It is just, IMO, they aren't competitors.
I don't think the 300 f/2.8 GM is a competitor with the Nikon 600 f/6.3 PF either. The Sony lens with a 2X TC is about $6,550 compared to $4,800 for the Nikon (and I can get it for an education discount of $3,800), so not really in the same price class, IMO. The Sony with the 2X TC is also 1,677g, 307mm long and 124mm in diameter, so bigger than the Nikon lens which isn't too surprising because it is a third of a stop faster. Personally, I see the size and capability of this lens as phenomenal, but I don't see it as evidence that Sony can build a 600 f/6.3 lens as small as the Nikon 600 PF or an 800 f/6.3 as small as the Nikon 800 f/6.3 PF without using PF/DO or some other advance in technology.
I agree with Chris Mak that I don't see Sony competing with the Nikon PF lenses even though I would love to see it, but I also agree with Pixel Perfect that the really exciting lens for me would be a 500 f/4.5 GM built to be as light as possible and I think they could do that using the same approach they took to the 300 f/2.8. I think it would be a super compelling lens, but I don't think it would come cheap. I think it would be something like $7,500, so wouldn't compete on price with the Nikon lenses either....Show more →
Hard to compare a 200-600 zoom with a prime. If you need that focal lengths covered by the zoom…then a 600mm prime just won’t do no matter how much lighter it is.
The F8 lenses are worthless, you can use it in the harsh light, but as soon as the sun is gone or the clouds are heavy - you are done. F6.3 is also not really that good but kind of better, I would buy 800mm F6.3 if it is not too heavy... I'm sure a lot of people will get it because it is "sharp", but what you can do with that sharpness when you cannot see your subject because it is too dark? Sony making this lens because it is "trend now". That is is IMO.
I think it's fair to say that has been proven to be wrong.
When Canon released the 600 and 800 f11 DO lenses, several FM members did some shooting at f11 just to test the worth.
While it's obvious that it was more challenging than their 600 f4 at f4, they got shots.
Considering that the Canon f11 lenses were around 10% of the price of a 600 f4, useless is not what most would describe these lenses, at least not those who actually did real field testing.
Further, it was found that, predictably, the massively smaller and lighter f11 lenses did open up some new possibilities.
That was f11, and you are talking f8.....
tester_V wrote:
The F8 lenses are worthless, you can use it in the harsh light, but as soon as the sun is gone or the clouds are heavy - you are done. F6.3 is also not really that good but kind of better, I would buy 800mm F6.3 if it is not too heavy... I'm sure a lot of people will get it because it is "sharp", but what you can do with that sharpness when you cannot see your subject because it is too dark? Sony making this lens because it is "trend now". That is is IMO.
