nmerc_photos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.5 #10 · Sony 400-800 f/6.3-8 G It's here!! | |
jhapeman wrote:
People will always make comparisons of things that aren't really comparable.
OK, so I was being a bit hyperbolic, but it is a bit foolish to compare them on weight though--there's a difference in the number of elements and working components to make a zoom vs. a prime. At the end of the day every zoom is a compromise of things like weight, f-stop and resolution in order to gain the flexibility of zooming. Nothing comes for free. If you don't need the flexibility of the zoom, then don't buy one, especially if you don't like the trade-offs.
The 180-600 is a different case because it has the same aperture as the 600PF, so it's a more apt comparison, but of course it has more elements and more working components so it weighs more. The optical compromises made also come with a penalty. The benefits there are the ability to zoom and a cheaper price.
Back to my point though that got derailed. It's incorrect to say this is not aimed at wildlife shooters. Some people don't want a fixed prime. It's not just budget or weight. In the Sony line up this absolutely fills a gap. Just because Nikon has decided to make an 800PF doesn't mean that Sony or Canon have to copy that. Clearly they feel they have solutions in this space that work for their customers. Nikon has their own.
Will I buy this? No, I don't like using zooms, for what I am shooting 99% of time I want as much reach as possible. But there will definitely be people who are happy to use this all day long either becuase they love a zoom, or don't have the budget for a prime. For those people this lens will be a great option, just like the 180-600 is for the Nikon crowd. ...Show more →
Nobody said this "wasn't aimed at wildlife shooters". That would be a silly thing to say, because obviously it's aimed at wildlife shooters. Who else wants a 6lb telescope to carry around? Portrait shooters? Street photographers?
Chris said it's not "aimed at wildlife shooters that like small, portable, and still high IQ" - which based on everything we know so far - is an absolute truth. This is shaping up to be the biggest and heaviest modern "prosumer" wildlife zoom to date.
If you're going to claim your point being derailed, you should make sure to understand what's been said.
My main issue with this lens (in theory) is that everyone already complains about the size and weight of a 200-600. Canon came out with the 200-800 which was aggressively priced, more reach, and similar size/weight - and people complain about the lack of IQ when compared to 100-400, 100-500, 180-600, or 200-600.
Sony is looking at lenses that are already too big and heavy, making one that is bigger AND heavier - and likely in order to keep price low, not improving IQ much if at all.
I suspect there must be a market for this lens (or Sony wouldn't make it), but I'm not sure who it would be. I think it would need to be cheaper than the 200-600, with noticeably better AF, MFD, and IQ in order to compete. If someone is on a budget, they're much more likely to buy a used 200-600 (or keep one they have) than spend more money for a bigger, heavier, slower lens.
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
How trustworthy is Sony Alpha rumors with their predictions usually? I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know the slightest thing about lens design and engineering, but I would find it weird if this lens is bigger and heavier than the nearly 6 year old 200-600mm when Sonys whole thing lately has been making G and G Master lenses lighter and lighter. Maybe there’s an engineering limitation for the 400-800 if it is in fact bigger and heavier? I’m not sure.
This is my lingering thought too. I'm really hoping that if it must be physically larger than the 200-600, it's at least significantly lighter somehow.
Sony is known as the brand that creates the smallest and lightest lenses in each category they compete in. a big, slow, heavy zoom is complexing to me from that view.
|
