Don't forget that Sony E mount cameras have one directional focus lines. Sometimes tilting the camera will give you lock on. My A mount cameras come with cross focus points like most high end dslr's (and the Canon R1) which facilitates picking up focus.
I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread, but does anyone have any thoughts on the 400-800 vs the 300 gm 2.8 with a teleconverter? Obviously these are in different price points, have different focal lengths, different conveniences. etc. but I'm trying to decide if I want to keep the 400-800 I got recently or if I want to return it and go for either a 300 gm or the sigma 300-600 f4.
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread, but does anyone have any thoughts on the 400-800 vs the 300 gm 2.8 with a teleconverter? Obviously these are in different price points, have different focal lengths, different conveniences. etc. but I'm trying to decide if I want to keep the 400-800 I got recently or if I want to return it and go for either a 300 gm or the sigma 300-600 f4.
Since I have the 300 & 400/800, I would personally go for the 300. Don't forget that to make the 300 versatile, another $1100 in TC's are involved.
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread, but does anyone have any thoughts on the 400-800 vs the 300 gm 2.8 with a teleconverter? Obviously these are in different price points, have different focal lengths, different conveniences. etc. but I'm trying to decide if I want to keep the 400-800 I got recently or if I want to return it and go for either a 300 gm or the sigma 300-600 f4.
I have both, and think it may depend a lot on what you are photographing. The other day I was photographing eagles fishing and aerial battles. Given the distance to the birds, I needed the 800mm and even then was cropping some times (see post on 400-800mm image thread). The zoom was also very useful when picking out subjects moving in the air quickly. I ended up only using the 300mm, with and without TCs, for perched birds. That could change in a different location. But where I was, there can be significant distances to the birds when the action is happening. I also have a slight bias to zooms for the flexibility.
So far, testing both, I am gravitating to the 400-800. I will say the 300mm is remarkable for resolving capability. Impressive lens. That said, TC's are not fast to switch out. I personally will be using the 300mm to augment the 400-800 on a second body for when things are closer or low light. More of an add vs competing in the same range.
After following another thread on the Lightroom plugin to see focus points, I realized today that I never turned on tracking in my autofocus settings (yes, duh...). That plugin is a very useful tool to aid in seeing how the camera and lens responds to settings. Anyway, it was interesting to see that in this image it focused on the fish and not the birds. That is why the upper bird is slightly out of focus. Given my settings, it was probably due to the fish being closer to me than either bird. Somehow, eye detect with bird setting did not lock on the birds.
Ehh, that reads like a pretty good review to me for such a low-cost lens. The stuff that matters is very good. I got one for fun and it's a remarkably good lens for what it costs--I am very impressed so far.
mogul wrote:
Since I have the 300 & 400/800, I would personally go for the 300. Don't forget that to make the 300 versatile, another $1100 in TC's are involved.
---------------------------------------------
CPWarner wrote:
I have both, and think it may depend a lot on what you are photographing. The other day I was photographing eagles fishing and aerial battles. Given the distance to the birds, I needed the 800mm and even then was cropping some times (see post on 400-800mm image thread). The zoom was also very useful when picking out subjects moving in the air quickly. I ended up only using the 300mm, with and without TCs, for perched birds. That could change in a different location. But where I was, there can be significant distances to the birds when the action is happening. I also have a slight bias to zooms for the flexibility.
So far, testing both, I am gravitating to the 400-800. I will say the 300mm is remarkable for resolving capability. Impressive lens. That said, TC's are not fast to switch out. I personally will be using the 300mm to augment the 400-800 on a second body for when things are closer or low light. More of an add vs competing in the same range. ...Show more →
Thanks for your replies! I haven't had a chance to test out the 300 gm II, but it seems like a very very good lens. I'm having mixed feelings on my 400-800. It's my first super telephoto (other than when I rented a 200-600 which disappointed me a little too) and I think it renders nicely, but isn't as sharp as I'm used to. It's probably pixel peeping nonsense that has me feeling this way, but my other lenses are the 24-70 GM ii, 70-200 GM ii, and 35 1.4 gm, so I'm probably used to that level of sharpness. It's also more expensive than all of those lenses (although that's probably how super telephoto lenses go price wise given the 600 GM is 13k) so I was perhaps expecting a little bit more. It could definitely be user error though given that shooting at 800mm isn't the easiest thing in the world.
Thanks for your replies! I haven't had a chance to test out the 300 gm II, but it seems like a very very good lens. I'm having mixed feelings on my 400-800. It's my first super telephoto (other than when I rented a 200-600 which disappointed me a little too) and I think it renders nicely, but isn't as sharp as I'm used to. It's probably pixel peeping nonsense that has me feeling this way, but my other lenses are the 24-70 GM ii, 70-200 GM ii, and 35 1.4 gm, so I'm probably used to that level of sharpness. It's also more expensive than all of those lenses (although that's probably how super telephoto lenses go price wise given the 600 GM is 13k) so I was perhaps expecting a little bit more. It could definitely be user error though given that shooting at 800mm isn't the easiest thing in the world. ...Show more →
The big difference between lenses with focal lengths like the 24-70 GM ii, 70-200mm GM ii, and 35 1.4 is that one is typically much closer to the subject than with a super tele. Atmospheric effects are real and can cause softness. Technique is even more critical with long lenses. I got some really good images out of my 200-600, but in the right conditions, good light, and when I filled the frame with the subject. My 400-800 is no different, IMHO, but improves focus speed and goes to 800. When I am cropping, image quality suffers. The right light matters. I like my 400-800 so far, however, it is not going to outperform a 600mm other than in cost, weight, and flexibility with the zoom vs teleconverters.
I guess that review is yet another reason not to let go of my stellar copy of the 200-600mm until I am certain I am happy with the copy I end up with of the 400-800mm if/when I get one. I won't be selling my 200-600mm to help fund it, that is for sure...
I guess that review is yet another reason not to let go of my stellar copy of the 200-600mm until I am certain I am happy with the copy I end up with of the 400-800mm if/when I get one. I won't be selling my 200-600mm to help fund it, that is for sure...
Eric
I'm not sure how the French tests are done, but the reduced IQ at 600mm is a real concern for me. However, it is consistent with the TDP test data.
EB-1 wrote:
I'm not sure how the French tests are done, but the reduced IQ at 600mm is a real concern for me. However, it is consistent with the TDP test data.
EBH
I recently tested my friends copy against his 200-600g and the result was similar: at 600mm the 200-600g was sharpest at f8 and sharper than the longer lens at any aperture. His 200-600g is an above average copy, though (best of a total of 6 tested). The difference was only visible when zooming in.Test distance was about 8m (26 feet) and any sharpening and noise reduction were disabled.
When shooting the 400-800g at 800mm it sharpened up noticeably and narrowly beat his 200-600g in sharpness per pixel (shot at longer distance according to fl). f10 seemed sharpest.
magicmaze wrote:
According to SAR, the 400-800mm is now no longer available for pre-order on B&H, and the pre-order button is grayed out for Adorama as well.
If anyone is looking for one still PM me. I can direct you to a retailer that has a couple. At least as of typing this
mslino wrote:
Is there any info about LR or DxO lens profiles for the FE 400-800mm lens?
Well, in my opinion, maybe Lightroom is faster, but as the user CanadaMark already stated in this discussion https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1892234/ , DxO is unfortunately not characterized by the speed in updating lens profiles: I think it will still take several months.
I hope it doesn't happen like with the Sigma 500mm F5.6 DG DN, which was launched 1 year ago and according to this link https://www.dxo.com/supported-cameras/ it still doesn't appear.
My own tests of the 400-800 at 800mm on a hyper-detailed test image (set of banknotes), at a distance of 7/8 meters, with tripod, remote control, manual focus (with the Sony assistant for manual focus, to avoid micro mismatches in the autofocus), framing equality and compared to the Sony 200-600 + 1.4 X at 840mm, have resulted in the 400-800 having slightly greater sharpness and micro-contrast in most areas of the image (center and corners).
And the copy I have of the 200-600 I consider good (it is the 3rd that passed through my hands, the previous 2 suffered from slight off-center lenses).
I have not been interested in comparing both lenses at 600mm or much less at 400mm, focal lengths at which the 200-600 will be at least equal or, even at 400mm, better.
The 400-800, in my humble opinion, will be useful to replace the 200-600+1.4X at 840mm, focal length in which I shoot 95% of the time in bird photos. I have no intention of selling my 200-600 at the moment because of its proven quality and greater focal flexibility for outdoor sports, etc.
mogul wrote:
Don't forget that Sony E mount cameras have one directional focus lines. Sometimes tilting the camera will give you lock on. My A mount cameras come with cross focus points like most high end dslr's (and the Canon R1) which facilitates picking up focus.
