Hard to beat the 300 2.8 + TCs combo in my book
I travel a lot so this is my preferred gear, hands down
However, I do miss the 800mm optical reach sometimes
So the 400-800 would be a nice addition for situations where a tripod is called for and not having to hike too much (won't bring it on airplanes)
With crop mode on, a reach of native 1200mm ain't too shabby
It'll be heavy but hope it's not too expensive for a 'secondary' lens
Cheers,
Having seen the size and the rumoured weight, this lens is nowhere as compelling as I had hoped. 2.5kg for a slow 2x zoom is an instant hard pass. Heavier than my 800 PF and for sure f/7.1 at 600mm, so slower than the 200-600G @ 600mm. IMO 2.5kg would have been okay if it were a 300-800 f/5.6-8.0.
More than ever a 600 f/5.6G would have been infinitely more desirable and it would weigh maybe 1.6-1.7kg max, and gets you 840 f/8.0 when needed. I'f 600mm were enough, then the 300 f/2.8 + 2x would be good option. I like to see Sony now do a 400 f/4 GM as good as the 300 f/2.8 and then we could get 800 f/8.0 when needed.
deevee wrote:
Hard to beat the 300 2.8 + TCs combo in my book
I travel a lot so this is my preferred gear, hands down
However, I do miss the 800mm optical reach sometimes
So the 400-800 would be a nice addition for situations where a tripod is called for and not having to hike too much (won't bring it on airplanes)
The 400-800 might be cheap enough to just check in the luggage and not worry about it.
Bigger (dimensionally and in heft) than the 200-600?!! It better deliver on the optics, otherwise why not just run a 1.4x on the 200-600.
Sony would sell a boat load of A1s and A1IIs and A9IIIs if it properly understood that wildlife hobbyists are fairly deep pocketed and want reach and lightweight lenses and will pay for both. Ceding all this market to Nikon is baffling.
600 5.6
700 6.3
400 4.0 with built in 1.4 and/or 2.0.
LBJ2 wrote:
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."
about 96% of 600mm FL = about 576mm FL
" since the comment posted was exact at 565mm FL"
I assume your are talking about ChrisMak's comment? ChrisMak: Though the 200-600 never reaches 600mm, but something around 565mm.
So, at least for ChrisMak, no, not exact.
"about 96% of 600mm FL = about 576mm FL"
ie, the same value I just edited from 675mm to 575mm, as Arbitrage picked up, 575mm was what I meant to post.
Worth remembering, very unlikely the 600 f4 is actually 600mm, but rather a little less.
So as I have used a true 600 to (roughly) calculate the 200-600's actual focal length at 600, it's probably closer to 565 than my 575 or your 576 calculation.
As EB-1 said, +/-5% used to be a 'standard' meaning 570mm would be considered 'in spec' for a 600.
So we can expect the 600 f4 to be between 570 and 600.
Choderboy wrote:
" since the comment posted was exact at 565mm FL"
I assume your are talking about ChrisMak's comment? ChrisMak: Though the 200-600 never reaches 600mm, but something around 565mm.
So, at least for ChrisMak, no, not exact.
"about 96% of 600mm FL = about 576mm FL"
ie, the same value I just edited from 675mm to 575mm, as Arbitrage picked up, 575mm was what I meant to post.
Worth remembering, very unlikely the 600 f4 is actually 600mm, but rather a little less.
So as I have used a true 600 to (roughly) calculate the 200-600's actual focal length at 600, it's probably closer to 565 than my 575 or your 576 calculation.
As EB-1 said, +/-5% used to be a 'standard' meaning 570mm would be considered 'in spec' for a 600.
So we can expect the 600 f4 to be between 570 and 600.
My indication was not meant as an exact measurement.
Subject magnification at 600mm decreases relative to the 600GM as you start to focus closer, so the fact that the size of the subject in the frame 200-600 does not reach size that the 600GM gives you, becomes less relevant as you focus further out.
At the same time, this was about the aperture at 600mm, and the slightly slower aperture at 600mm is mostly relevant when shooting closer to your subject. When focussing to (near) infinity, I would argue that f7.1 is not much different than f6.3.
When being closer to your subject however, the slower aperture may give you less attractive bokeh and less subject isolation. But then the diminished subject size in the frame that the 200-600 gives you is working against the faster aperture, and the 400-800 set to 600mm may be just as usefull despite its f7.1 aperture, if it gives you a bigger subject in the frame.
Which of course is an open question without having used the lens.
Swiss francs. I thought everyone knows how to Google "convert Swiss Francs to whatever dollars"
The price is little bit steep for such a slow glass, but again, retiaries mostly taking pictures during mooring and afternoon...
I absolutely get that you did not make an exact statement.
Your quote, in bold, included "somewhere around" which is quite clearly, not exact.
And then I made a further comment saying your statement was not exact.☺
ChrisMak wrote:
My indication was not meant as an exact measurement.
Subject magnification at 600mm decreases relative to the 600GM as you start to focus closer, so the fact that the size of the subject in the frame 200-600 does not reach size that the 600GM gives you, becomes less relevant as you focus further out.
At the same time, this was about the aperture at 600mm, and the slightly slower aperture at 600mm is mostly relevant when shooting closer to your subject. When focussing to (near) infinity, I would argue that f7.1 is not much different than f6.3.
When being closer to your subject however, the slower aperture may give you less attractive bokeh and less subject isolation. But then the diminished subject size in the frame that the 200-600 gives you is working against the faster aperture, and the 400-800 set to 600mm may be just as usefull despite its f7.1 aperture, if it gives you a bigger subject in the frame.
Which of course is an open question without having used the lens....Show more →
Many of the comments about focal length are not correct. You need to learn about focal length, FOV, and focus breathing. A well designed lens will have a constant FOV as it focuses between infinity and its MFD (i.e. no focus breathing). That means it will not have a constant focal length. For example, the 600/4 focused at 6.0 meters does not have a focal length of 600mm, which is good.
dclark wrote:
Many of the comments about focal length are not correct. You need to learn about focal length, FOV, and focus breathing. A well designed lens will have a constant FOV as it focuses between infinity and its MFD (i.e. no focus breathing). That means it will not have a constant focal length. For example, the 600/4 focused at 6.0 meters does not have a focal length of 600mm, which is good.
A well designed lens is one that does exactly what is required of it not one that has no focus breathing or one that has constant focal length. Sharpness, contrast, focus speed, weight, size, price etc. may all be far more important than focus breathing depending on what the primary intended application is.
duncangr wrote:
A well designed lens is one that does exactly what is required of it not one that has no focus breathing or one that has constant focal length. Sharpness, contrast, focus speed, weight, size, price etc. may all be far more important than focus breathing depending on what the primary intended application is.
That may be your opinion but that does not change the fact that at 6.0m the focal length of the 600/4 is not 600mm.
dclark wrote:
Many of the comments about focal length are not correct. You need to learn about focal length, FOV, and focus breathing. A well designed lens will have a constant FOV as it focuses between infinity and its MFD (i.e. no focus breathing). That means it will not have a constant focal length. For example, the 600/4 focused at 6.0 meters does not have a focal length of 600mm, which is good.
Assuming TDP results have been accurately measured, at 10m shooting distance,
the 600 f4 has a longer focal length than the 200-600 zoom, at 600mm.
I assume you agree with that statement?
TDP measurements: (9920mm and 9491mm being shooting distance required to fill the frame with the same target)
SAR says Sigma is going to announce an 800 f/6.3 for e-mount at CP+. An 800mm alternative. Will see if they can get it anywhere near the Nikon's weight and size without using PF/DO.
arbitrage wrote:
SAR says Sigma is going to announce an 800 f/6.3 for e-mount at CP+. An 800mm alternative. Will see if they can get it anywhere near the Nikon's weight and size without using PF/DO.
If Sony allows more than 15 FPS, I may get one if it's close to the Nikon 800 PF in size and weight. If it's capped at 15 FPS, I will probably take a pass.
Douglas L wrote:
If Sony allows more than 15 FPS, I may get one if it's close to the Nikon 800 PF in size and weight. If it's capped at 15 FPS, I will probably take a pass.
That 15 fps limitation is overblown; just a few years ago, that was the fastest cameras. I personally shoot slower unless I see a need for culling hundreds of photos.
More choices now at 800mm all of a sudden
More to deliberate but I'm leaning towards the zoom , better for videos, since I've already have a prime
15 FPS is not a killer , if anything it saves time culling the photos
Shooting falcons locally with only 600mm isn't sufficient, will need that 800mm badly
Bring them on , the more the merrier ;-)
Cheers,
