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.
Hatch
Hatch, who did cause the delay then? B&H or FedEx? The damage of the box is for sure caused by FedEx. But luckily, the content is intact and that what counts.
AGeoJO wrote:
Hatch, who did cause the delay then? B&H or FedEx? The damage of the box is for sure caused by FedEx. But luckily, the content is intact and that what counts.
Very lucky!
It was on FedEX and all the stops between NY and AZ. I've purchased my gear through B&H for almost 20 years now, nothing but praise. They did a great job packing it, it's the only reason it survived.
I have been very happy with the lens. Took it out once so far and the images were excellent.
The lens is sharp and being a zoom not a prime it lacks a little but after going through Topaz or DXO
they are great. It is very hand holdable and not too heavy.
The 600f/4 gm I had was definitely heavier to hand hold.
I like to shoot birds a majority of the time in flight and really appreciate being able to get the bird in the frame locked on at about 400 -500mm then zooming in to 800mm quickly to fill the frame with the 1/4 turn zoom 400-800 range.
The focus is fast and accurate with my A1.
The light is good here in Florida and definitely keeping and using it as my walk around lens.
You still can't beat the 600gm being one of the best 600mm lens in production but can easily be very happy with this lens.
Click on the image links to view the high res original sizes, a few shots of the birds going to the feeders.
Distance is about 15-18 ft? 800mm
In LR I hit the "Auto" button for adjustments and exported the images. I think the default sharpening is 40 in LR?
DOF is pretty shallow, you can make the call on the level of sharpness coming from the lens, if it meets your expectations or not
Just thought I would share some mildly edited full res shots for those who might be interested.
AGeoJO wrote:
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. ...Show more →
I wasn't planning on relying on other opinions, per se, just seeking them to help determine if it is indeed worth my while to investigate further for another (potentially useful) 200mm of reach. Yes, many aspects of photography are subjective, but hearing comparisons of one lens to another from various people can often generate a good consensus picture of what to expect and are thus useful to some degree or another. Such opinions and comparisons are, after all, the basis of many gear-related topics here on FM
It was on FedEX and all the stops between NY and AZ. I've purchased my gear through B&H for almost 20 years now, nothing but praise. They did a great job packing it, it's the only reason it survived.
Mine is delayed as well. Originally said Sunday delivery when I got the tracking and then it changed to Tuesday once it actually shipped. Now its says weather delay with no up date as to when it will arrive and not sure where it even is at this point. Last scan said it left NJ somewhere 4 days ago. Hopefully doesn't show up looking like yours.
johncocci wrote:
Mine is delayed as well. Originally said Sunday delivery when I got the tracking and then it changed to Tuesday once it actually shipped. Now its says weather delay with no up date as to when it will arrive and not sure where it even is at this point. Last scan said it left NJ somewhere 4 days ago. Hopefully doesn't show up looking like yours.
I hope is shows up soon and not in the condition mine arrived in. It's been a fun day of shooting, enjoy yours when it arrives.
took out the lens to shoot "live" subjects for the first time. two test shots below, both handheld.
The lens's sweet spot is 600mm and below, between 600mm to 800mm it is a bit softer and definitely not as sharp as my 600GM + 1.4X TC. It is not bad by any means though and visibly better than using the 2-6 with 1.4X TC.. it doesn't show much CA and can handle low contrast relatively well.
The 400-800 has dual motors but these are not the more powerful XD type motors that they put in the GM super-telephoto lenses. The AF can hunt/slow down a bit if the limiter switch is set to full but once set to limited range it speeds up just like the 2-6.... too early for me to tell if it is faster than the 2-6 but definitely not as fast as the GM prime + 1.4X... all of this of course to be expected and shouldn't come as a surprise
I think overall this lens is a better choice for general bird photography the then 2-6
speedmaster20d wrote:
The lens's sweet spot is 600mm and below, between 600mm to 800mm it is a bit softer and definitely not as sharp as my 600GM + 1.4X TC. It is not bad by any means though and visibly better than using the 2-6 with 1.4X TC.. it doesn't show much CA and can handle low contrast relatively well.
too early for me to tell if it is faster than the 2-6 but definitely not as fast as the GM prime + 1.4X... all of this of course to be expected and shouldn't come as a
I sure would hope that a $13k lens performs better than a $3k lens in almost every scenario or configuration. To me that is not a fair comparison. In my opinion the most productive comparisons would be with the 200-600 and maybe the Sigma and Tamron variants even though they can’t be used with a TC.
jav_eee wrote:
I sure would hope that a $13k lens performs better than a $3k lens in almost every scenario or configuration. To me that is not a fair comparison.
He was comparing a naked zoom to a prime with a TC installed. In my experience that can be a rather close call.
Looking at the digital-picture comparisons (wish they could redo the 2-6 testing with the A1 though), it seems like Sony prioritized IQ at the long end:
- 200-600: 200 = good, 400 = great, 600 = good
- 400-800: 400 = meh, 600 = good, 800 = great
So basically, the 2-6 performed the best at 400, which is normal for zoom lenses, generally performing their best at the mid-range, but the 4-8 is different, and I think it's a very wise choice from Sony.
Also, both lenses look about equal at 600 (2-6 better in the center, 4-8 better at mid-frame + periphery).
octo wrote:
Looking at the digital-picture comparisons (wish they could redo the 2-6 testing with the A1 though), it seems like Sony prioritized IQ at the long end:
- 200-600: 200 = good, 400 = great, 600 = good
- 400-800: 400 = meh, 600 = good, 800 = great
So basically, the 2-6 performed the best at 400, which is normal for zoom lenses, generally performing their best at the mid-range, but the 4-8 is different, and I think it's a very wise choice from Sony.
Also, both lenses look about equal at 600 (2-6 better in the center, 4-8 better at mid-frame + periphery).
There will also be the inevitable copy to copy variation as well as a learning curve for this lens to get the best results from it. I know I have a lot of practice coming up with it so I can maximize my results. I also hope the various raw processors come up with a lens profile for it soon (DxO in my case), but ACR has done a good job so far.
I disagree with what you wrote, trivially because the images should be compared at the same aperture, and there are some other lenght.
And it is impossible to say “meh” about results like that!
...and like saying “meh” on 400gm+1.4X....we're talking about 100% crop....
By the way if you don't consider that yield good....then the canon 200-800 should not even be put on sale, the comparison with the sony is merciless, the canon at 800 goes worse than the sony with 1.4x!!!
I don’t know where my lenses stack up in terms of copy sharpness. But so far, in my limited time with the lens, I find the 400-800mm is very sharp.
I may even go as far as saying, it is sharper than either my 100-400 and 200-600 at their longest focal lengths
And maybe this is just placebo. But I feel the images are a little more organic. And less digital. Which is weird to say given the bodies are digital. But that’s the feeling I have so far
Fedex has held my lens since Monday in my town and won't let me pick it up. Don't know why B&H uses this disorganized company; it reminds me of the present Administration.
My Chasing Bird lens cover was just delivered, 5 days earlier than stated. Took 15 minutes to put it on. I didn't use the piece for the Sony hood nor the piece for the foot, since I am using a metal hood and will get a replacement foot when it's available.
I like this coat, a bit thinner than the Lenscoat, much softer and elastic than the RolandPro, much better protection than a skin. I am quite happy with it.
Douglas L wrote:
My Chasing Bird lens cover was just delivered, 5 days earlier than stated. Took 15 minutes to put it on. I didn't use the piece for the Sony hood nor the piece for the foot, since I am using a metal hood and will get a replacement foot when it's available.
I like this coat, a bit thinner than the Lenscoat, much softer and elastic than the RolandPro, much better protection than a skin. I am quite happy with it.
As Will Smith said, "I gotta' get me one of these!"
