jakelindsay wrote:
Where is my 300mm F4 or 400mm F4.5, Sony?
Head scratching decision with the 200-600 being so great.
I agree, reasonably priced small size tele primes are still missing from Sony FE mount, the only exception being Sigma 500/5.6.
Over here Nikon is quite popular among the wildlife photography community. Nikon guys have plenty of good tele options, and many still use 300mm and 500mm PF lenses carried over from F-mount.
Regarding the new lens, looks like 200-600 G is till the preferred economical wildlife zoom. 400-800 G will not be smaller, is not as bright, and looses the sometimes very practical 200-399mm focal lengths. I bet the 400-800 G is also more expensive than 200-600 G! All I can thing is that 400-800 G has (maybe) improved AF motors and is little better at 800mm compared to 200-600 G with 1.4x TC.
As price and size of Sony 400mm and 600mm GM tele primes is too much for me, I do not see a reason to update my 200-600 G to anything. Or maybe Sigma 500/5.6, it is a fine lens despite the software limitations.
Time to wake up Sony! Stop hallusinating with the uninteresting semi-improvements of excisting lenses, and make us the light and compact 300/4 and 500/5.6 duo.
tuomkok wrote:
I agree, reasonably priced small size tele primes are still missing from Sony FE mount, the only exception being Sigma 500/5.6.
Over here Nikon is quite popular among the wildlife photography community. Nikon guys have plenty of good tele options, and many still use 300mm and 500mm PF lenses carried over from F-mount.
Regarding the new lens, looks like 200-600 G is till the preferred economical wildlife zoom. 400-800 G will not be smaller, is not as bright, and looses the sometimes very practical 200-399mm focal lengths. I bet the 400-800 G is also more expensive than 200-600 G! All I can thing is that 400-800 G has (maybe) improved AF motors and is little better at 800mm compared to 200-600 G with 1.4x TC.
As price and size of Sony 400mm and 600mm GM tele primes is too much for me, I do not see a reason to update my 200-600 G to anything. Or maybe Sigma 500/5.6, it is a fine lens despite the software limitations.
Time to wake up Sony! Stop hallusinating with the uninteresting semi-improvements of excisting lenses, and make us the light and compact 300/4 and 500/5.6 duo....Show more →
You have a 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4 and 600 f/5.6 at 1.6kg - a wildly better option than the Nikon lenses or a 300/4 and a 500/5.6 - which are compromised.
arbitrage wrote:
The big question will be at what focal length the aperture increases each 1/3 stop. If it is already 7.1 or 8 at 600 then I would be favouring the 200-600. If it can keep f/6.3 at 600, f/7.1 601-700mm and then f8 above 700 it certainly would have more utility than swapping on and off a 1.4TC to the 200-600. Also very likely the AF above 600 will be better than the 200-600 with 1.4TC.
I would never choose it over a Sony/Nikon style 180/200-600 f/6.3 lens.
But if Sony 400-800 can hold the 6.3 to 600 then it is interesting....Show more →
duncangr wrote:
You have a 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4 and 600 f/5.6 at 1.6kg - a wildly better option than the Nikon lenses or a 300/4 and a 500/5.6 - which are compromised.
Sony - just keep doing what you are doing...
300mm F2.8 GM is playing in a completely different league.
I find it hard to believe that Sony is going to sell more 400-800mm F/6.3-8 than they would if they released a 300mm F4. Dunno. I'm sure they do their research. Just seems strange.
jakelindsay wrote:
300mm F2.8 GM is playing in a completely different league.
I find it hard to believe that Sony is going to sell more 400-800mm F/6.3-8 than they would if they released a 300mm F4. Dunno. I'm sure they do their research. Just seems strange.
I find it hard to believe that 300/4 is all that popular in the 2020s. Maybe if it went down to 1:2 I would be interested.
A 300/2.8 has it's place for speed, but the development of good 100-400s replaced all of my 300/4s about 10 years ago.
tuomkok wrote:
Time to wake up Sony! Stop hallusinating with the uninteresting semi-improvements of excisting lenses, and make us the light and compact 300/4 and 500/5.6 duo.
I don't mind this lens - and if its an excellent performer for a reasonable price, I could see it replacing the 200-600 (and complimenting the 100-400 better) - but agree with many, what Sony is really missing in the section are:
-Small, lightweight, affordable long primes like Nikon
-A wildlife/sports high MP capable camera like the Z8/R5II in the prosumer price ranger (3000-4500)
LBJ2 wrote:
How did you determine the G200-600 only reaches around 565mm and not 600mm?
For me, once I have read it from numerous reliable sources, I accept it as fact.
I do this though with some experience.
It's rare for a zoom to actually match it's specs.
Canon Patents will often specify for example, 73-196 for a 70-200.
Canon EF lens Work III lists angle of view and it's normal for a big white to have a narrower angle of view than a zoom.
The Sigma 120-300 was well know to be quite short of 300.
The Canon 100-400 L was estimated to be about 370mm and the 100-400 II a little longer.
Compared to a 400 2.8, both of these zooms would clearly show the same subject smaller in the frame at the same shooting distance.
I still owned my EF 400 5.6L when I bought 100-400 II and found it to be a little longer than the zoom.
It came as no surprise that owners of the 200-600 that also owned 600 f4 and tested, found the same thing.
The Digital picture lists 'Subject Framing Distance', While this does not allow accurate focal length determinations,
it's a safe bet that the big whites of Canon or Sony can be shown to have longer focal lengths than any zoom.
IOW, it's common knowledge, if you have been curious enough to look.
Recently, it has been shown, that the Sony 300 with 2X TC is shorter than the 600 f4.
Now, I very well may be wrong here, but I think a 2X TC is not actually 2X. Maybe 1.96. (square of 1.4)
Does that mean if the 300 is actually exactly 300 that adding 2X would result in 588?
Add the fact it's more likely 295 at the most, it's probably less than 580.
TDP 'Subject Framing Distance' specs are a little confusing how they are presented.
However, Comparing Sony 600 f4 to 200-600 zoom, at 600mm:
Sony 600 4
600mm x 400mm Target:
600mm = 9920mm
Sony 200-600
600mm x 400mm Target:
600mm = 9491mm
So using the 600/4, the same target fills the frame at 429mm more shooting distance.
ie, you have to be closer to the subject with the zoom.
Assuming true 600mm for the 600/4, this makes the 200-600 around 575mm.
(At that shooting distance)
For me it's all about the weight because I am constantly hiking looking for shots which is why I am now exclusively using my 300gm with teles. It doesn't seem like that much more weight until you lug it around for 3-4 hours while walking four miles. BTW I have an immaculate 2-6 for sale on the FM forum. Excuse the shameless plug
Choderboy wrote:
For me, once I have read it from numerous reliable sources, I accept it as fact.
I do this though with some experience.
It's rare for a zoom to actually match it's specs.
Canon Patents will often specify for example, 73-196 for a 70-200.
Canon EF lens Work III lists angle of view and it's normal for a big white to have a narrower angle of view than a zoom.
The Sigma 120-300 was well know to be quite short of 300.
The Canon 100-400 L was estimated to be about 370mm and the 100-400 II a little longer.
Compared to a 400 2.8, both of these zooms would clearly show the same subject smaller in the frame at the same shooting distance.
I still owned my EF 400 5.6L when I bought 100-400 II and found it to be a little longer than the zoom.
It came as no surprise that owners of the 200-600 that also owned 600 f4 and tested, found the same thing.
The Digital picture lists 'Subject Framing Distance', While this does not allow accurate focal length determinations,
it's a safe bet that the big whites of Canon or Sony can be shown to have longer focal lengths than any zoom.
IOW, it's common knowledge, if you have been curious enough to look.
Recently, it has been shown, that the Sony 300 with 2X TC is shorter than the 600 f4.
Now, I very well may be wrong here, but I think a 2X TC is not actually 2X. Maybe 1.96. (square of 1.4)
Does that mean if the 300 is actually exactly 300 that adding 2X would result in 588?
Add the fact it's more likely 295 at the most, it's probably less than 580. ...Show more →
Back before 1989 IIRC JCII had a focal length spec of ±5%. I don't recall the distance, maybe whatever gave a 1:49 repro as was common then. I also recall that the FL should be measured in the center and assuming no distortion, but sometimes is measured over a larger arc. There are several variables like that which cause varying reported results. It could be argued that the FL should be measured at the typical distance you will use, and many are quite reduced up close.
It is widely known that zooms are typically long on the short end and short on the long end. And yes, the long teles are most always short.
Choderboy wrote:
TDP 'Subject Framing Distance' specs are a little confusing how they are presented.
However, Comparing Sony 600 f4 to 200-600 zoom, at 600mm:
Sony 600 4
600mm x 400mm Target:
600mm = 9920mm
Sony 200-600
600mm x 400mm Target:
600mm = 9491mm
So using the 600/4, the same target fills the frame at 429mm more shooting distance.
ie, you have to be closer to the subject with the zoom.
Assuming true 600mm for the 600/4, this makes the 200-600 around 675mm.
(At that shooting distance)
Choderboy wrote:
TDP 'Subject Framing Distance' specs are a little confusing how they are presented.
However, Comparing Sony 600 f4 to 200-600 zoom, at 600mm:
Sony 600 4
600mm x 400mm Target:
600mm = 9920mm
Sony 200-600
600mm x 400mm Target:
600mm = 9491mm
So using the 600/4, the same target fills the frame at 429mm more shooting distance.
ie, you have to be closer to the subject with the zoom.
Assuming true 600mm for the 600/4, this makes the 200-600 around 675mm.
(At that shooting distance)
Thank you. Just curious. I'm not questioning focal lengths can vary from spec, just wondering how this 565mm FL is/was measured since the comment posted was exact at 565mm FL.
If I use The Digital Picture reference:
"...the FE 200-600mm lens at 600mm ideally frames a 23.62" x 15.75" (600mm x 400mm) target from 31.1' vs. 32.55' (9.491m vs. 9.920m) for the FE 600mm f/4 lens, about 96% as far. Among long zoom lenses, that is a small difference."
