I got the 400-800 just before the weekend, did some static tests, it is comparable to the 200-600 at 600mm, at 800mm it's a bit softer than 600 GM + 1.4X TC as one would expect, but it doesn't look too shabby at the center of the frame and an obvious choice over the 200-600 + 1.4X TC. will post a review in the coming weeks on my channel
it is not a light lens though, even though it weighs less than the 600 GM, it somehow feels less comfortable to handhold.
speedmaster20d wrote:
I got the 400-800 just before the weekend, did some static tests, it is comparable to the 200-600 at 600mm, at 800mm it's a bit softer than 600 GM + 1.4X TC as one would expect, but it doesn't look too shabby at the center of the frame and an obvious choice over the 200-600 + 1.4X TC. will post a review in the coming weeks on my channel
it is not a light lens though, even though it weighs less than the 600 GM, it somehow feels less comfortable to handhold.
The-digital-picture.com as already published the Sony 400-800 test.
It includes image quality, vignetting, flare and distortion.
The comparison with the Sony 200-600 and Sony 200-600 + 1.4X, without surprises.
jav_eee wrote:
I’m torn between this lens and the 200-600 or the sigma 500 f/5.6 for my A7RV to use on birds/wildlife.
I don't know if this will help you or not. For me a 500mm with no TC is a non-starter. At 800/840 no question the 400-800 is better than the 200-600 with 1.4X TC. At 600mm I was surprised that the 200-600 might be better. It's tough to tell because I had bad lighting in my test and the f8 of the 400-800 required higher ISO than the 200-600 at f6.3 So, it's hard to unconfound the ISO induced softness vs the lens created. I was using manual focus so could have been me. At 500mm the 400-800 looked better.
I had planned to sell my 200-600 but now not so sure. BTW for light weight 600 and 840 it looks like the Nikon 600mm PF is still the sharpness champ. Not as good as 600 GM but pretty good
The-digital-picture.com as already published the Sony 400-800 test.
It includes image quality, vignetting, flare and distortion.
The comparison with the Sony 200-600 and Sony 200-600 + 1.4X, without surprises.
Greetings.
The 400-800 is just good enough to want one, but not really as good as a fine lens.
I assume there will be some IQ improvements with the DXO, especially on CA, but the asymmetry of the MTF plots show seriously low meridional performance compared to sagittal. I think it is more than simply well-correctable CA.
The-digital-picture.com as already published the Sony 400-800 test.
It includes image quality, vignetting, flare and distortion.
The comparison with the Sony 200-600 and Sony 200-600 + 1.4X, without surprises.
Greetings.
Maybe I'm missing something, but in that test the 4-8 doesn't seem to stack up too well with the 2-6 at 600mm, especially with the 2-6 stopped down to f/8. One exception is at the periphery (which is largely irrelevant for a wildlife lens IMO). It's a hard comparison to judge though because you can't choose the same camera for both lenses
wordfool wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but in that test the 4-8 doesn't seem to stack up too well with the 2-6 at 600mm, especially with the 2-6 stopped down to f/8. One exception is at the periphery (which is largely irrelevant for a wildlife lens IMO). It's a hard comparison to judge though because you can't choose the same camera for both lenses
I don't think you are missing anything. It is really good at 800mm. It is surprisingly good at 1120mm. It is meh at 600. Mine actually looked better than 2-6 at 500mm which was a surprise. I will end up using it like a fixed 800 and maybe try 1120 with 1.4X TC.
I have used the G 400-800mm lens for real world shooting quite a bit over the weekend. Please note that I used it rather than tested it. IMHO, it is a great performer. I got tons of keepers and using a zoom lens that you can oom in to reach 800mm and in a fraction of a second you can zoom out to make sure you don't clip wings is a big bonus.
The lens incorporates dual linear motors, similar to those of the GM 600mm and as such, the AF is more responsive and fast. What about sharpness? For sure, no slouch, even compared to the big boys. But getting targets in focus fast and being able to track movement/flight consistently thanks to the improved AF is a BIG plus to me.
Here are 2 images of peregrine falcons, one of the fastest flying birds out there. Both are close to the last frames of a sequence that started with a jump off a perched position using pre-capture. The lens is capable of tracking this bird and keeping it in focus.
To freeze the action, I had to use a shutter speed of at least 1/2000sec. Most of the time, I had to run the files through AI Denoise of LR. Here is another image of a perched falcon; the first one is virtually uncropped and the second image is crop to taste of the first image. When it perched like that it is the time for me to use the custom hold function/button that I programmed to shoot at a lower shutter speed and at the same time, lowering the ISO. And I programmed the custom hold button to shot only at 5fps. So, less tedious work of deleting similar images at 30fps. Both edited using LR on my iPad without denoising. I am not complaining about the sharpness of that lens at 800mm... 😜.
The lens arrived about an hour ago, it was delayed by a day, I'm guessing not everyone in the warehouse had the opportunity to kick it around? YIKES! The box was beat up and had tape all over it. Think Ace Venture with Jim Carrey 2025-03-25_10-22-26 by hatch1921, on Flickr
Thankfully the lens was in the box and it appears to be fine.
Initial impression..
A little heavier than the 200-600, not bad to handle. It doesn't feel as balanced as the 200-600 but it's not bad to shoot (again, initial impression after 30min of shooting)
Focuses fast, locks on. Moving from 400-800 is quick, silky smooth.
Sharp... very little sharpening needed in post. It's sharper than my 200-600 and I have a sharp copy of the lens. The bokeh is really nice as well.
It's not the 600 F/4 but man the images so far look great, a step up over the 200-600 and a little behind the 600F/4. For the price, I think this is going to be a winner for many people, myself included.
So far... 2 thumbs up.. 5 stars... etc.
A couple of shots to share right after it arrived. I haven't tried it with the 1.4xTC but I'll do that later today when I'm not working.
Thankfully the lens was in the box and it appears to be fine.
Initial impression..
A little heavier than the 200-600, not bad to handle. It doesn't feel as balanced as the 200-600 but it's not bad to shoot (again, initial impression after 30min of shooting)
Focuses fast, locks on. Moving from 400-800 is quick, silky smooth.
Sharp... very little sharpening needed in post. It's sharper than my 200-600 and I have a sharp copy of the lens. The bokeh is really nice as well.
It's not the 600 F/4 but man the images so far look great, a step up over the 200-600 and a little behind the 600F/4. For the price, I think this is going to be a winner for many people, myself included.
So far... 2 thumbs up.. 5 stars... etc.
A couple of shots to share right after it arrived. I haven't tried it with the 1.4xTC but I'll do that later today when I'm not working.
Geezus! How your lens came out unscathed is a miracle!
Glad everything worked out. Pics look good!
I honestly didn't think it was going to even be in the box, it felt light when I lifted it up. The FedEx guy asked me if I wanted to receive the package or send it back lol
Thankfully B&H had it in a lot of bubble wrap, the lens is fine from what I can tell.
Good to hear people's impressions and see some great pics. I'm still on the fence about whether to make this my new wildlife lens based on two main factors -- the relatively slow speed (f/8 with associated ISO/shutter speed impacts), and the weight (esp. how front-heavy it is) -- so I'd love to see any comments on those two things in particular.
Most of my birding is either of the small, fast-moving warbler type (think high-ish shutter speeds often in limited light under tree canopies) or hummingbirds (usually bright light, but also ideally requiring high shutter speeds), hence my desire for a long lens that's highly maneuverable hand-held and that doesn't push my ISO to ridiculous levels. Yes, I know the 300mm+TC is the best option in terms of speed and weight, but that's too spendy for me right now and still only gets me to the same 600mm as my 2-6.
wordfool wrote:
Good to hear people's impressions and see some great pics. I'm still on the fence about whether to make this my new wildlife lens based on two main factors -- the relatively slow speed (f/8 with associated ISO/shutter speed impacts), and the weight (esp. how front-heavy it is) -- so I'd love to see any comments on those two things in particular.
Most of my birding is either of the small, fast-moving warbler type (think high-ish shutter speeds often in limited light under tree canopies) or hummingbirds (usually bright light, but also ideally requiring high shutter speeds), hence my desire for a long lens that's highly maneuverable hand-held and that doesn't push my ISO to ridiculous levels. Yes, I know the 300mm+TC is the best option in terms of speed and weight, but that's too spendy for me right now and still only gets me to the same 600mm as my 2-6. ...Show more →
While opinion on sharpness is subjective but it is more quantifiable compared to operability of the lens. It is difficult for you to rely on other people's opinion what is considered easily maneuverable and whether it is front-heavy or not. I would suggest for you to rent that lens or borrow that lens somebody you know for you to try it out in terms of handling. BTW, the G 200-600mm is no slouch and if you are happy with it, I wouldn't bother. Keep the money in your pocket for the time being until there is something that you have to have.
YIKES! The box was beat up and had tape all over it. Think Ace Venture with Jim Carrey 
