p.2 #1 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
I don't see the same thing, and several comparisons don't show a really better sharpness at 800mm... For my use the sony is too big, it's more expensive, and less versatile, i don't find the 400-800 avantages very useful, or minors (for my use again).
The 200-800 isn't perfect but he offers a unique focal length range for a good price and reasonable size/weight, I have the 200-800 for more a year now, and no complain about sharpness or AF speed on R6II.
p.2 #2 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
More expensive should be a good sign and allow better design. I'm awaiting general availability and more relevant test results from purchased lenses. The pre-release units are usually given free or loaned to the online folks that typically don't criticize the products enough.
I don't think it is a high bar to exceed the 200-800 at 800mm. But if the Sony is only slightly better it's not worth using either.
2) The digitial picture lens comparison page. While it does'nt yet have the 400-800 up, it does compare the 200-800 at 800mm vs 200-600 with 1.4x at 840mm. Obviously not a direct comparison with the 400-800, but the reviews of the 400-800 I've seen indicate at 800 it is significant better than the 200-600 at 840mm, so perhaps an approximate proxy.
2) The digitial picture lens comparison page. While it does'nt yet have the 400-800 up, it does compare the 200-800 at 800mm vs 200-600 with 1.4x at 840mm. Obviously not a direct comparison with the 400-800, but the reviews of the 400-800 I've seen indicate at 800 it is significant better than the 200-600 at 840mm, so perhaps an approximate proxy.
2) The digitial picture lens comparison page. While it does'nt yet have the 400-800 up, it does compare the 200-800 at 800mm vs 200-600 with 1.4x at 840mm. Obviously not a direct comparison with the 400-800, but the reviews of the 400-800 I've seen indicate at 800 it is significant better than the 200-600 at 840mm, so perhaps an approximate proxy.
A comparison of MTFs from different sources makes no sense. Says Zeiss.
The main problem with TDP is that the test shots are at close distance, not at infinity or even close to infinity. A comparison yes, but not a final verdict. At all. Throw in the differences between individual lenses and you´ve got a mess. Simply put, these tests are too simplistic to answer the questions asked. Makes good television though.
p.2 #6 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
"A comparison of MTFs from different sources makes no sense. Says Zeiss.
The main problem with TDP is that the test shots are at close distance, not at infinity or even close to infinity. A comparison yes, but not a final verdict. At all. Throw in the differences between individual lenses and you´ve got a mess. Simply put, these tests are too simplistic to answer the questions asked. Makes good television though."
From what I can tell Canon vs Sony MTF charts are based on the same criteria (eg. 10 and 30 lines/mm), but sure, definitely possible there are some hidden differences in methodology.
I know the person who runs TDP personally, and know that they are incredibly rigorous in their measurements. Sure, just like any other review, a distance is chosen (or maybe 2 or 3 in some cases) and an individual lens is used. But to call it a 'mess' is inaccurate. It is one indicator. (BTW, for me personally and I know for many other bird photographers, many images of small birds are taken near close focus distance, so a distance not close to infinity, is certainly not useless.)
While I'm at it, here is another indicator with similar initial findings: at 14:01
p.2 #7 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
matth4ever wrote: "A comparison of MTFs from different sources makes no sense. Says Zeiss.
The main problem with TDP is that the test shots are at close distance, not at infinity or even close to infinity. A comparison yes, but not a final verdict. At all. Throw in the differences between individual lenses and you´ve got a mess. Simply put, these tests are too simplistic to answer the questions asked. Makes good television though."
From what I can tell Canon vs Sony MTF charts are based on the same criteria (eg. 10 and 30 lines/mm), but sure, definitely possible there are some hidden differences in methodology.
I know the person who runs TDP personally, and know that they are incredibly rigorous in their measurements. Sure, just like any other review, a distance is chosen (or maybe 2 or 3 in some cases) and an individual lens is used. But to call it a 'mess' is inaccurate. It is one indicator. (BTW, for me personally and I know for many other bird photographers, many images of small birds are taken near close focus distance, so a distance not close to infinity, is certainly not useless. ...Show more →
As a Canon shooter for many years, I personally wonder what Canon is thinking. Releasing glass like the 200-800, and the 600, 800mm slow lenses. Nice to have options and looks like hopefully this will make Canon up their game a bit.
Who knows!
p.2 #8 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Well, I guess it is about their target market. The slower glass is more portable, and less expensive. Maybe not quite as sharp, and needs more light, but has it's place. For example, birding is growing rapidly from what I can tell, and many of these folks are happy with record shots of their sightings, so would rather have portability than the fastest glass.
p.2 #9 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
matth4ever wrote: "A comparison of MTFs from different sources makes no sense. Says Zeiss.
The main problem with TDP is that the test shots are at close distance, not at infinity or even close to infinity. A comparison yes, but not a final verdict. At all. Throw in the differences between individual lenses and you´ve got a mess. Simply put, these tests are too simplistic to answer the questions asked. Makes good television though."
From what I can tell Canon vs Sony MTF charts are based on the same criteria (eg. 10 and 30 lines/mm), but sure, definitely possible there are some hidden differences in methodology.
I know the person who runs TDP personally, and know that they are incredibly rigorous in their measurements. Sure, just like any other review, a distance is chosen (or maybe 2 or 3 in some cases) and an individual lens is used. But to call it a 'mess' is inaccurate. It is one indicator. (BTW, for me personally and I know for many other bird photographers, many images of small birds are taken near close focus distance, so a distance not close to infinity, is certainly not useless.)
While I'm at it, here is another indicator with similar initial findings: at 14:01
To avoid the "mess" you would need a decent sample size of the different lenses compared. Very few reviewers have that, even fewer(?) readers care. There is always the human confirmation bias. We tend to believe the reviews that support our own thoughts.
On the technical side, all these lenses are actually incredibly good today. But there are of course minor discrepancies that are observed by the user/reviewer. The design of the lens does its part, one being performance at different distances. Good point about the small passerines at close range.
When we compare two lenses of different designs, as in this thread, the sample variation can very well be the decisive difference. Not necessarily between the lens designs, but between the two lens specimens that any reviewer reviews. This is very boring and lacks any fertilizing effects on the subject at hand, and thus usually left untouched.
Zeiss actually mentions small sample variation as one of the main goals with their new Otus ML line. It might be boring, but it still is for real.
p.2 #10 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Z250SA wrote:
The main problem with TDP is that the test shots are at close distance, not at infinity or even close to infinity. A comparison yes, but not a final verdict. At all. Throw in the differences between individual lenses and you´ve got a mess. Simply put, these tests are too simplistic to answer the questions asked. Makes good television though.
TDP tests are like any other target test in that the distance is based on obtaining a fixed magnification.
At 800mm the distance will not be very close. For many birds the target size is fairly representative. If one is expecting to use such a lens at longer distances for elephants or the like then it may be different but the air is likely to be factor.
I find that target tests for wideangles are more problematic since they have to be quite close and don't represent a wider scene. Many of those lenses have some kind of moving elements to correct for distance.
2) The digitial picture lens comparison page. While it does'nt yet have the 400-800 up, it does compare the 200-800 at 800mm vs 200-600 with 1.4x at 840mm. Obviously not a direct comparison with the 400-800, but the reviews of the 400-800 I've seen indicate at 800 it is significant better than the 200-600 at 840mm, so perhaps an approximate proxy.
The Canon MTF charts allow for the effects of diffraction. The Sony one's don't - they are just "geometric" - and considerably overestimate the actual MTFs.
p.2 #12 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
There is much FUD on the 400-800. Production lenses are being released to retail soon, so there will be more meaningful data and then there will be image processing profiles. A French site has some 50MP RAW files which are about all we have to go by. Obviously it's easy to take a 50-61MP image and process to make it look good on a web page.
p.2 #13 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
EB-1 wrote:
There is much FUD on the 400-800. Production lenses are being released to retail soon, so there will be more meaningful data and then there will be image processing profiles. A French site has some 50MP RAW files which are about all we have to go by. Obviously it's easy to take a 50-61MP image and process to make it look good on a web page.
EBH
No reason for FUD, when was the last Sony DUD?
They are either WOW, or not as WOW as hoped.
Sometimes they are even Holy COW (GM300).
I'd say there have been enough releases to warrant just using the cost as an indicator.
(I just read your very similar statement after I posted)
ie, it's good. No way it's any less then the 200-600 and far more likely better.
p.2 #14 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Sorry, no test of the 400-800. But I got some experience with the restricted wide end compared to the 200-800 when I tried my lens with the 1.4x on the R5 yesterday in shining bright late winter light with some new snow.
The 1120mm FL is obviously rather hysterical, specifically gathering each and every small twirl of atmospheric shimmer. But at very short distances, below 10m, I am surprised how good the IQ is. The lens is actually doing exactly what it should, it is sharp! The only limiting factor is the effects of diffraction at f/13, a slight loss of contrast. The other is the extremely shallow DoF and the high hormone level Eurasian Blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) that were my subjects of the moment. So 800 or 1120mm, very little to gain there at any longer distances, as EB-1 pointed out four posts above, and I found to be correct.
But the 280mm at the widest, THAT was limiting compared to the 200mm of the plain 200-800 or preferably the 100mm of the 100-500 that I´m accustomed to. I was intrigued by the 400-800. But after this experience I lost that GAS totally. Yes, a sharp 400-800 is far more versatile compared to any prime. But that small 2x zoom range is truly limiting for variable shooting. It is actually rather primitive.
One last note. Background blur at f/13 at 1120mm? Very blurred out! Only a thin slice of Blue tit in focus at 7m.
p.2 #15 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
When I first got my 800mm f/11 after getting into wildlife photography, I thought about how nice a 400-800 would be in the f/8ish range.
Then Canon dropped the 200-800 and I bought it as fast as I could. It’s been a great lens for me, but there’s been a few things that frustrate me. At 800 it’s a tad soft at 100%, stopping down to f/10 brings a ton of sharpness back however. It’s still sharper than the multiple copies of the 200-600 that I’ve tried. I also have issues blowing highlights with this lens more than any I’ve ever used. However the biggest drawback for me has been the zoom throw. It limits the useful focal range for me because I typically keep it zoomed out to around 400 so I can get to 800 quickly if I need to.
After seeing the 400-800 I jumped on it immediately, but after thinking about it the rest of the day I canceled my order. I promised myself no more switching systems.
What I did do however was order an R5 Mk ii. I haven’t had a stacked sensor since my A9 so I can’t wait. I can easily live with the other quirks I have with the 200-800, but I do wish it had a shorter throw.
p.2 #17 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
icantbebigwill wrote:
I also have issues blowing highlights with this lens more than any I’ve ever used. However the biggest drawback for me has been the zoom throw. It limits the useful focal range for me because I typically keep it zoomed out to around 400 so I can get to 800 quickly if I need to.
This has been my experience too. Generally I underexpose a tad to protect the highlights and edges that are highlights.
I honestly would pay a little more to get higher quality elements to control the highlights better.
p.2 #18 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
I want to get the most out of my RF 200-800mm so I tested f9 vs f10 at 800mm on my R5ii by taking many images of birds and some of charts to see if I was missing out by using the lens wide open. There was no perceptible improvement for my copy of the lens on stopping down, and I see also very little on the the-digital-picture's image quality tests except maybe less vignetting. I suppose there must be copy variation if others see a ton of sharpness on doing so. My copy is softer at 800mm than 600mm since a cropping a full image at 600mm to 800mm field of view gives very nearly the same resolution despite the loss of focal length and fewer pixels. As I crop images a lot, the extra pixels from 800mm do help with less pixellation in heavily cropped images as does the extra range of eyeAF over 600mm.
p.2 #19 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Part of the perceived benefits of f/10 is probably the slightly deeper sharp field.
Awareness of the detrimental effects of atmospheric shimmer is growing. I met two separate photogs yesterday, both with growing 800mm experience, and both had gone through the Sh!t-I´ve-got-a-bad-copy angst, Oh-it-is-the-damn-shimmer so familiar to me.
Interestingly Duade Paton in his most recent video often used the 400-800 at the shorter end, on a crop Sony which is 1.5x, so at 600-700mm FF FoW and sometimes even had to move backwards to get "everything" to fit into the image. The rather restricted zoom range of a 2x zoom is a factor to consider as well as its far better versatility than a prime.
p.2 #20 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
squawk3000 wrote:
This has been my experience too. Generally I underexpose a tad to protect the highlights and edges that are highlights.
I honestly would pay a little more to get higher quality elements to control the highlights better.
Maybe next Canon iteration, they gotta put something in those high end Mk3-4s It would be particularly easy these days as the metering takes place on the sensor. If it can draw immediate histogram in the viewfinder, there is no reason for the camera not to have automatic "Highlight protection" and "ETTR" modes that would be perfect or almost perfect.
It would be particularly easy these days as the metering takes place on the sensor. If it can draw immediate histogram in the viewfinder, there is no reason for the camera not to have automatic "Highlight protection" and "ETTR" modes that would be perfect or almost perfect.