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.
While the maximum aperture does limit photography in low light and for action, I think a common situation that bird photographers encounter is that a bird is sitting on a tree branch, and is sometimes quite still for a bit, and then moves rapidly, and sits still again for a bit. It's possible to utilize these still periods to get shots at quite slow shutter speeds such as 1/50 s, get bursts using electronic shutter, afterwards select the 10% or so that are sharp, and use those. f/8 at 800 mm full frame would produce similar images to f/4 at 400 mm cropped by 2x (ie. throw away 75% of the image area) in terms of depth of field and image noise in the final presentation. This is probably a common situation required when photographing birds. A 400-800 mm at 800 mm would be demanded less from the MTF perspective than a 100-400 mm at 400 mm and so better results would be likely obtained using the 400-800 at 800 mm in terms of detail than 100-400 cropped by 2x (also the noise would be lower).
A 800/5.6 or 800/6.3 is a bigger financial commitment and also would make it more difficult to find the bird in the frame initially than with a 400-800 which can be zoomed out to find the bird and then zoomed in to get the close-up shots.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
While the maximum aperture does limit photography in low light and for action, I think a common situation that bird photographers encounter is that a bird is sitting on a tree branch, and is sometimes quite still for a bit, and then moves rapidly, and sits still again for a bit. It's possible to utilize these still periods to get shots at quite slow shutter speeds such as 1/50 s, get bursts using electronic shutter, afterwards select the 10% or so that are sharp, and use those. f/8 at 800 mm full frame would produce similar images to f/4 at 400 mm cropped by 2x (ie. throw away 75% of the image area) in terms of depth of field and image noise in the final presentation. This is probably a common situation required when photographing birds. A 400-800 mm at 800 mm would be demanded less from the MTF perspective than a 100-400 mm at 400 mm and so better results would be likely obtained using the 400-800 at 800 mm in terms of detail than 100-400 cropped by 2x (also the noise would be lower).
A 800/5.6 or 800/6.3 is a bigger financial commitment and also would make it more difficult to find the bird in the frame initially than with a 400-800 which can be zoomed out to find the bird and then zoomed in to get the close-up shots. ...Show more →
I agree that a 400-800mm lens with a f8 aperture at 800mm has the potential to be a very nice lens.
However, I just don't see how this lens is going to avoid being targeted at a large group of consumers, and in line with that, the dictates on design, materials and performance, that will simply have to be in line with an affordable price level.
More than the lens specs themselves, the typical positioning of this type of lens makes me lower my expectations of what it will be.
I don't necessarily wish for a large aperture at 800mm (which will indeed be very nice to have on full frame), I simply woud like to see a lens with more than low end focus motor, large copy variation, performance issues on certain bodies (like the 200-600G on the A7RIV), not so great CA correction and only average contrast etc. etc. that all inevitably come with cost savings to make consumer class lenses competitive.
In fact, I am hoping this lens will be 4000,- and offer more than I expect, but I assume it will be around 2000,- and have all the compromises you would expect with such a price for a 800mm lens
ChrisMak wrote:
I agree that a 400-800mm lens with a f8 aperture at 800mm has the potential to be a very nice lens.
However, I just don't see how this lens is going to avoid being targeted at a large group of consumers, and in line with that, the dictates on design, materials and performance, that will simply have to be in line with an affordable price level.
More than the lens specs themselves, the typical positioning of this type of lens makes me lower my expectations of what it will be.
I don't necessarily wish for a large aperture at 800mm (which will indeed be very nice to have on full frame), I simply woud like to see a lens with more than low end focus motor, large copy variation, performance issues on certain bodies (like the 200-600G on the A7RIV), not so great CA correction and only average contrast etc. etc. that all inevitably come with cost savings to make consumer class lenses competitive.
In fact, I am hoping this lens will be 4000,- and offer more than I expect, but I assume it will be around 2000,- and have all the compromises you would expect with such a price for a 800mm lens...Show more →
"I simply woud like to see a lens with more than low end focus motor": Sony's definition of "low end" is DDSSM, which is still higher end in other brands, and they're linear motors. Slightly slower than XD linear motors, but should be good enough and handle 120fps too.
Jan 29, 2025 at 09:12 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
chez wrote:
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.
I agree with you, and in my post I wasn't trying to compare the Sony 200-600 with the Nikon 600 PF, but rather to contrast them and note that they aren't really comparable. It is hard to compare them. I think it is also hard to compare the Sony 300 f/2.8 with the 2X TC with the Nikon 600 PF as well. Basically, my point is that Sony isn't directly competing with the Nikon PF lenses but offering alternatives instead and just as the 200-600 doesn't compete with the Nikon 600 PF, this new Sony 400-800 f/8 if it really materializes will not compete with the Nikon 800 PF. It isn't really comparable. I do wish Sony would offer lenses more like the Nikon lenses, but they haven't so far and it may not be easy for them to do so.
I just like seeing that this is a lens intended for the masses and not just the elite.
It seems like everything else, pricing of camera gear is taking it out of the hands of the people that could make it shine.
I hope that this lens can get others involved in taking nature photos.
Even for me, I'll probably get this lens. 800mm and on a high megapixel camera, 1200mm with the press of a button. sign me up.
My gut instinct is that this lens will aim to compete with the Canon 200-800, but in a smaller and perhaps cheaper form factor. A gateway drug to the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8 and 600 f4.
I don't expect it to have IQ as good or better than the 100-400 or 200-600.
For my own uses, I would be very surprised if I end up picking one up. 400-800 is a great focal length, but I would either need it to be sub $2000 and sub 3lbs at f8, or sub $5000 and sub 5lbs at f6.3 with incredible IQ for example.
As others have mentioned, slow aperture isn't as big of a deal as it used to be. Many can easily handhold even the 7lb lenses down to 1/10s without issue for stationary subjects.
I expect the lens will be a big hit and many people who are just getting into wildlife photography will pick one up. It should sell well for its intended audience.
That clearly looks like a bigger lens than the 200-600g, so the f8 aperture is likely a true f8, and not a favorable rounding.
It will be interesting to see how the lens performs at 800mm, because from what I have seen and read, the Canon 200-800mm lens is no better at 800mm than cropped at 600mm, which kind of makes the additional reach useless.
Acuity, contrast and resolution have to be maintained at 800mm, otherwise the long reach has no real value other than putting some more pixels on your subject, similar to adding a TC to a bare lens.
I'm hoping since they choose 400-800 that means the 100-400GM will get a version II soon. That lens is great but definitely could be alittle smaller and lighter with a bump in AF speed and sharpnes at 400mm.
The 100mm aperture is 10% bigger area than the 200-600mm lens' 95mm diameter aperture. Maybe it'll have that larger aperture and still be lighter like the trend from last year's 27% larger area of the 107mm(?) diameter 300mm F2.8 lens (1470g) + 2x (207g) total weight of 1,677g vs. 200-600mm 's 2,245g.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Definitely looks like it extends to me. And it looks more compact than 200-600 even from that limited photo.
What makes you think it "Definitely looks like it extends" - and why "more compact than the 200-600"? Just curious not being critical.
To me the structure/layout look almost identical to the 200-600 where the tripod collar is located ahead of the button sliders controlling Ibis, AM/AF. etc., whereas on the 100-400 the tripod collar is behind the "button sliders".
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Definitely looks like it extends to me. And it looks more compact than 200-600 even from that limited photo.
Why I think the way I do.
The 200-600, the switches are before the tripod collar, the 100-400, the collar is next to the camera.
No smooth/tight ring visible. (like on the 100-400)
The tripod collar looks like it may have a place to attach a strap. (like the 200-600)
The 200-600, the switches are before the tripod collar, the 100-400, the collar is next to the camera.
No smooth/tight ring visible. (like on the 100-400)
The tripod collar looks like it may have a place to attach a strap. (like the 200-600)
nmerc_photos wrote:
My gut instinct is that this lens will aim to compete with the Canon 200-800, but in a smaller and perhaps cheaper form factor. A gateway drug to the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8 and 600 f4.
I don't expect it to have IQ as good or better than the 100-400 or 200-600.
For my own uses, I would be very surprised if I end up picking one up. 400-800 is a great focal length, but I would either need it to be sub $2000 and sub 3lbs at f8, or sub $5000 and sub 5lbs at f6.3 with incredible IQ for example.
As others have mentioned, slow aperture isn't as big of a deal as it used to be. Many can easily handhold even the 7lb lenses down to 1/10s without issue for stationary subjects.
I expect the lens will be a big hit and many people who are just getting into wildlife photography will pick one up. It should sell well for its intended audience....Show more →
I really hope it is not another mediocre lens.
400-800 only a 2:1 zoom range, so why can't is have similar IQ to the 200-600? f/8 makes it a more expensive lens to manufacture than f/9, not so entry level. If it doesn't have good MTF at 800mm and f/8, then what's the point? You could just buy a 200-600 which is good at 600mm and far more versatile. I guess we'll se soon enough.
EB-1 wrote:
I really hope it is not another mediocre lens.
400-800 only a 2:1 zoom range, so why can't is have similar IQ to the 200-600? f/8 makes it a more expensive lens to manufacture than f/9, not so entry level. If it doesn't have good MTF at 800mm and f/8, then what's the point? You could just buy a 200-600 which is good at 600mm and far more versatile. I guess we'll se soon enough.
EBH
I think it certainly -could- have better IQ than the 200-600, but I doubt that it will. Mainly basing it off the Canon 200-800 and expecting this lens to be a competitor to that one.
I'm not a massive fan of the 180-600 or 200-600, and find the 200-800 to be behind those two lenses. My guess based on the totally limited info so far is the 400-800 would be behind all 3.
I expect the main improvement will be AF technology, as the 200-600 is using ancient equipment in that regard. I was also expecting it to be smaller and lighter than the 200-600, though that may not be the case based on the leaked image.
The coming 400-800 is internal zoom and bigger and heavier than the 200-600G. So not aimed at wildlife shooters that like small, portable and still high IQ.
On the other hand, being an upscaled 200-600G, it may offer better IQ than it would have had if the weight and sized would have been brought down by making it a f9 lens at the long end.
