p.3 #2 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
The-digital-picture is a great site, except when it comes to details from its image comparisons. One that always sticks in my mind is that he has the EF 100-400mm II sharper than the EF 400mm f4 DO ii - I have owned 3 copies of the zoom and two of the prime, and the primes were sharper. Roger Cicala of lensrentals found the same using more copies in his 400mm shootout. Here there are oddities. The-digital-picture’s review shows a noticeable loss of resolution of the Sony when stopped down from f8 to f/11 https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1727&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=1727&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3
But measured on PCMag, there is a significant improvement.
“At 800mm, the lens scores 3,000 lines at f/8 and manages 3,700 lines at f/11.” https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/sony-fe-400-800mm-f63-8-g-oss
If TDPs charts are reliable, the Canon has the slight edge at shorter focal lengths and the Sony at 800mm. But, I wouldn't put my money on it and copy variation could swing it one way or the other.
p.3 #4 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
arbitrage wrote:
That is a way bigger difference than I was expecting. At 800mm wide open the 200-800 looks like mush compared to the 400-800.
Yes I also notice the big difference at 800mm
p.3 #6 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
It's pretty obvious how Canon cuts corners and prevents loss of the big tele sales by ensuring the mediocre zooms. I think the relative price is about right for what you get.
I just wish Canon would make a 300-800/6.3 for about $8000, that could be a really fine lens. I know it will never happen though.
p.3 #8 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Struggling with a decision:
I have:
* R5II, RF100-500, 1,4xExtender
* Sony A6700, FE200-600
The images from R5II+100-500 is awesome when reach is not a limit.
When reach is a limit I attach the 1,4x Extender and it gives me 700mm ,F10 ....but living on the coast it is not enough with 700mm and heavy crops.
The Sony A6700 APS-C sensor with 200-600 F6,3 gives 26MP in 900mm fov about the same amount of pixels as the R5II +RF100-500+1.4Ext. at F10 when cropped to the same fov as the Sony combo.
* FF at F10 vs APS-C at F6.3... the F stop difference takes away the FF superiority
So I have 2 systems that gives me the same Fov and want to add/change that to more reach on one or the other.
Should I get the:
* Sony FE 400-800 (F8@800 (1200 APS-C) and has internal Zoom (really good design))
* Canon RF200-800 (F9 @800 FF and F13 @1120 with 1,4 Extender...IF this lens isn't good with 1,4x Extender on R5II I'm only winning 100mm.)
R5ii is used mostly for BIF and the Sony APS-C mostly for pearched birds and some BIF with bigger birds
prices of the lenses in my country:
Canon RF 200-800 converted to USD 2750USD
Sony FE 400-800 converted to USD 3100USD
p.3 #9 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
I have been using the R5 II with 100-500 and a7rV with the 200-600. The a6700 pixel size is almost identical to the a7rV and as you mentioned the relative focal length of the 200-600 to the 100-500 is close to 700mm considering the difference between 45MP and 61MP.
I guess the main question is if you find the IQ of the 100-500 and 1.4x to be good or not. I do not like it. To me, the 200-600 on the a7rV is noticeably better not to mention 1 1/3 stop faster. At 800mm the Sony 400-800 is better than the 200-800, but it's not exactly a great lens either. I don't like putting any TC on a zoom lens other than a very few fast, high-grade lenses, not the cheap super-teles. I think you should try the Canon 200-800 and see if it is adequate for you. I may just try the 400-800 on the a1 II.
p.3 #10 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Even before the 400-800 hit many people were complaining about the 200-800 being soft at 800.
Personally I am getting rid of all my canon gear except the 500 II. That is the best lens I have ever owned. I will run it into the ground. Canon has absolutely nothing I want as a birder and hasn't for years. Lens wise.
p.3 #11 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Well, the 500/4 II is better with the 1.4x III than any of the bduget tele zooms are without a TC. And it's way better than the 200-800 at 800. Even if you have to uprez 700mm to 800mm and stand on your head it's still better.
I've had many of the 500/4 II and the newest one about 5 years ago to get by until anyone makes a lens to replace it.
p.3 #12 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
EB-1 wrote:
Well, the 500/4 II is better with the 1.4x III than any of the bduget tele zooms are without a TC. And it's way better than the 200-800 at 800. Even if you have to uprez 700mm to 800mm and stand on your head it's still better.
I've had many of the 500/4 II and the newest one about 5 years ago to get by until anyone makes a lens to replace it.
EBH
Hahah, agree 100%. I am a hold out, still shooting with a DSLR. I am going to buy the R5 II and pair it with the 500II. Really looking forward to checking out the mirrorless world.
p.3 #13 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
EB-1 wrote:
I have been using the R5 II with 100-500 and a7rV with the 200-600. The a6700 pixel size is almost identical to the a7rV and as you mentioned the relative focal length of the 200-600 to the 100-500 is close to 700mm considering the difference between 45MP and 61MP.
I guess the main question is if you find the IQ of the 100-500 and 1.4x to be good or not. I do not like it. To me, the 200-600 on the a7rV is noticeably better not to mention 1 1/3 stop faster. At 800mm the Sony 400-800 is better than the 200-800, but it's not exactly a great lens either. I don't like putting any TC on a zoom lens other than a very few fast, high-grade lenses, not the cheap super-teles. I think you should try the Canon 200-800 and see if it is adequate for you. I may just try the 400-800 on the a1 II.
Well the 100-500 + 1,4x extender IQ is ok For my needs.
Bokeh is the weakest point.
Without extender it’s a really good zoom small, light etc.
Of course a prime lens is better but 12000-15000 USD is out of reach for me.
Too bad Canon doesn't allow third-party lenses if they did I would consider to buy the sigma 300-600 f4.
The 200-800 if only use it bare it gives me only 100mm and a third stop and if the lens is soft at 800 it won’t give me anything other than headache and a 2700 USD hole in my wallet.
Sony FE 400-800 it has about the same fov as 200-600+1.4 ext. so the 200-600 is not a true 600mm.
Sony FE300/2.8 has also come to mind for a different purpose (450mm fov on aps-c) when walking in the woods or using a blind but it’s a quite expensive option for those few moments.
p.3 #14 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Yes, comparing cats and bananas can provide for some
I´m actually surprised by two things in the 200-800 vs 400-800 comparisons.
1. The 200-800 fairs pretty well considering its double zoom range.
2. Considering how bad the 200-800 appairs in the TDP tests, it can still project wonderfully sharp images. Is there actually more to photography than shooting Siemens charts? (Rhetorical Q)
p.3 #15 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
biggles2002 wrote:
Well the 100-500 + 1,4x extender IQ is ok For my needs.
Bokeh is the weakest point.
Without extender it’s a really good zoom small, light etc.
Of course a prime lens is better but 12000-15000 USD is out of reach for me.
Too bad Canon doesn't allow third-party lenses if they did I would consider to buy the sigma 300-600 f4.
The 200-800 if only use it bare it gives me only 100mm and a third stop and if the lens is soft at 800 it won’t give me anything other than headache and a 2700 USD hole in my wallet.
Sony FE 400-800 it has about the same fov as 200-600+1.4 ext. so the 200-600 is not a true 600mm.
Sony FE300/2.8 has also come to mind for a different purpose (450mm fov on aps-c) when walking in the woods or using a blind but it’s a quite expensive option for those few moments.
p.3 #17 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
Just shot a weekend of vintage auto racing at Willow Springs race track in Southern California using an R5 II and R6 II with a 100-500L and 100-300L tele zooms. The 100-300L never came out of the bag as the 100-500 was absolutely perfect for this event held in sunny daylight. I did use the RF 1.4x a couple of times on the lens but the AF and image quality suffered a bit. The 1.4X was really purchased to pair with the 100-300L with occasional use on the 100-500L. But seeing a drop off on performance I decided to order the 200-800L just for the instances when reach is needed it. Btw the AF performance on the R5 II tracking cars was far superior to the R6 II.
p.3 #20 · Canon 200-800mm vs the just announced Sony 400-800mm
CelesteForza wrote:
Just shot a weekend of vintage auto racing at Willow Springs race track in Southern California using an R5 II and R6 II with a 100-500L and 100-300L tele zooms. The 100-300L never came out of the bag as the 100-500 was absolutely perfect for this event held in sunny daylight. I did use the RF 1.4x a couple of times on the lens but the AF and image quality suffered a bit. The 1.4X was really purchased to pair with the 100-300L with occasional use on the 100-500L. But seeing a drop off on performance I decided to order the 200-800L just for the instances when reach is needed it. Btw the AF performance on the R5 II tracking cars was far superior to the R6 II....Show more →
I have never been happy with the 1.4xTC on the 100-500 and find the 200-800 far superior for the extra reach - sharper and with better AF.
