p.12 #1 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Quick review of the 400-800mm, see my pics above.
I've previously owned the Sigma 500 f/5.6 and the Sony 200-600
Sharpness and Image quality: The lens is sharp, for an 800 as you can see. I feel peak sharpness is around 600mm, at that point its "similar" to my 200600 was but with a bit less contrast. However it is very difficult to actually get sharp photos with this lens: It's an f/8.0, it's heavy, and its 800mm...you really need ideal light for it, and a very steady grip. I do feel like the OSS is not good enough for 800mm. It really takes some skill to use this lens to its potential. It is certainly not as easy to use as the 200-600 was. The images definitely do not have the color reproduction of my Sigma 500 prime or even perhaps the 200-600. There is less contrast/microcontrast and at 800mm the photos have a soft, but detailed appearance. Compared to my Sigma, its definitely got greater resolving power but maybe around 650mm of resolved detail if sharpness were equal to the Sigma.
Handling: Actually not that heavy, I can carry it for hours but I can only really have it up for 30s - 40s at a time. This makes using my camera's pre-capture mode or shooting video difficult. The zoom ring is a bit of a pain in the ass as its too loose. often times I find that I am well below 800mm because I accidentally brushed against it. I've been working up the muscle memory to turn it to 800mm before shooting. Just an adjustment to go through coming from a sigma prime. The focus ring is right where your palm would rest, so if you have full time DMF you will brush up against it.
f/8.0: Not ideal. Even walking in a bright forest, if I am shooting 1/320s for a perched bird, which is already difficult and forces me to use Hi mode on my camera to spray and pray and hope for the ideal shot, I am at ISO 6000-10000+. Is it really a 800mm lens at that point? I feel that my sigma 500mm, cropped to 800mm would out perform it in these conditions albeit with significantly worse DOF. In more ideal conditions its great and the depth of field is more shallow than the 200-600 or the sigma 500, as long as you're shooting at 800mm... At 600mm It is worse than both of them in terms of depth of field.
Auto-focus performance:
I don't think this lens is keeping up with A1ii. Pre-capture is essentially useless unless its a distant bird, or a larger bird. A red wing black bird about 6-7 meters away, flying towards me will 100% miss most shots. I have fiddled with the A1ii's settings extensively. Being f/8.0 does not help it either. For BIF and normal scenarios its been good, better than my 200-600 and A7RV combo for sure. For fast moving birds such as swallows, the hit rate is still quite poor. I don't have experience with GM primes so this might be a A1ii issue rather than the lens.
Overall this is a difficult to use lens, offering less enjoyment in the field compared to something like a Sigma 500mm f/5.6 but the results are better with better bokeh, and more detail at 800mm. Compared to 200-600mm it really depends on what you're shooting. I don't really think its an upgrade to the 200-600, just a different version for different needs. For smaller birds I would pick this every time.
p.12 #2 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
aryanenzo wrote:
Quick review of the 400-800mm, see my pics above.
I've previously owned the Sigma 500 f/5.6 and the Sony 200-600
Sharpness and Image quality: The lens is sharp, for an 800 as you can see. I feel peak sharpness is around 600mm, at that point its "similar" to my 200600 was but with a bit less contrast. However it is very difficult to actually get sharp photos with this lens: It's an f/8.0, it's heavy, and its 800mm...you really need ideal light for it, and a very steady grip. I do feel like the OSS is not good enough for 800mm. It really takes some skill to use this lens to its potential. It is certainly not as easy to use as the 200-600 was. The images definitely do not have the color reproduction of my Sigma 500 prime or even perhaps the 200-600. There is less contrast/microcontrast and at 800mm the photos have a soft, but detailed appearance. Compared to my Sigma, its definitely got greater resolving power but maybe around 650mm of resolved detail if sharpness were equal to the Sigma.
Handling: Actually not that heavy, I can carry it for hours but I can only really have it up for 30s - 40s at a time. This makes using my camera's pre-capture mode or shooting video difficult. The zoom ring is a bit of a pain in the ass as its too loose. often times I find that I am well below 800mm because I accidentally brushed against it. I've been working up the muscle memory to turn it to 800mm before shooting. Just an adjustment to go through coming from a sigma prime. The focus ring is right where your palm would rest, so if you have full time DMF you will brush up against it.
f/8.0: Not ideal. Even walking in a bright forest, if I am shooting 1/320s for a perched bird, which is already difficult and forces me to use Hi mode on my camera to spray and pray and hope for the ideal shot, I am at ISO 6000-10000+. Is it really a 800mm lens at that point? I feel that my sigma 500mm, cropped to 800mm would out perform it in these conditions albeit with significantly worse DOF. In more ideal conditions its great and the depth of field is more shallow than the 200-600 or the sigma 500, as long as you're shooting at 800mm... At 600mm It is worse than both of them in terms of depth of field.
Auto-focus performance:
I don't think this lens is keeping up with A1ii. Pre-capture is essentially useless unless its a distant bird, or a larger bird. A red wing black bird about 6-7 meters away, flying towards me will 100% miss most shots. I have fiddled with the A1ii's settings extensively. Being f/8.0 does not help it either. For BIF and normal scenarios its been good, better than my 200-600 and A7RV combo for sure. For fast moving birds such as swallows, the hit rate is still quite poor. I don't have experience with GM primes so this might be a A1ii issue rather than the lens.
Overall this is a difficult to use lens, offering less enjoyment in the field compared to something like a Sigma 500mm f/5.6 but the results are better with better bokeh, and more detail at 800mm. Compared to 200-600mm it really depends on what you're shooting. I don't really think its an upgrade to the 200-600, just a different version for different needs. For smaller birds I would pick this every time.
Thanks for taking the time to write this review.
The 400-800G is Sony's only way to get to 800mm without going to the exotic primes, so I guess many shooters will want to try one sooner or later.
It is a mixed bag apparently, having many plusses and some marked minusses.
Nikon has the 800PF, which may ultimately be a better option if you are after 800mm.
p.12 #3 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
ChrisMak wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to write this review.
The 400-800G is Sony's only way to get to 800mm without going to the exotic primes, so I guess many shooters will want to try one sooner or later.
It is a mixed bag apparently, having many plusses and some marked minusses.
Nikon has the 800PF, which may ultimately be a better option if you are after 800mm.
Is the AF as good as the A1ii though...
p.12 #7 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
TimMunsey wrote:
A sequence of an osprey leaving the water with a fish, fast close action:
I think the AF kept up 100%
Tim
Spectacular, Tim! What was your shutter speed? And did you have OSS off? Sometimes shooting BIF I thought the OSS was interfering with sharpness when I was using high shutter speeds but I had it on just for framing steadiness. Not sure what best practice is.
p.12 #8 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Ross Martin wrote:
Spectacular, Tim! What was your shutter speed? And did you have OSS off? Sometimes shooting BIF I thought the OSS was interfering with sharpness when I was using high shutter speeds but I had it on just for framing steadiness. Not sure what best practice is.
Shutter speed 1/2500 f/6.3 as at 400mm end. OSS on, I typically leave it on Number 1.
p.12 #9 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
So... I'm on the fence with this lens (will most likely get it)... For those of you that have this lens and also the 200-600mm, do you feel it's redundant to have both? Or for those that got rid of the 200-600mm have regrets?
My situation is, I often use my 200-600mm WITH the 1.4x TC so I would think the wise decision is to just trade it in and call it a day. However, there are times when there's very little light and I definitely take the 1.4x TC off... I guess I could just shoot at 590mm and get F7.1
p.12 #10 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
trainerKEN wrote:
So... I'm on the fence with this lens (will most likely get it)... For those of you that have this lens and also the 200-600mm, do you feel it's redundant to have both? Or for those that got rid of the 200-600mm have regrets?
My situation is, I often use my 200-600mm WITH the 1.4x TC so I would think the wise decision is to just trade it in and call it a day. However, there are times when there's very little light and I definitely take the 1.4x TC off... I guess I could just shoot at 590mm and get F7.1
My applications may be very different from others. When I had the 200-600, it was my go to lens for airshows and hummingbirds in my yard (due to the close MFD), since I bought the 300 GM, I have used it with the 2X TC as my only hummingbird lens. I sold the 200-600 and bought the 400-800 as my airshow lens. It's a trade off, 800mm is more useful for me for airshows than 200mm, occasionally I do wish I could go wider than 400mm without using another lens. In the past, I had the 200-600 on one camera and the 600 GM+1.4TC on another camera for airshows. From now on, if I know the subjects don't require wider than 400mm, I will just bring the 400-800, if I know I may need to shoot wider than 400mm, I will bring the 100-400 on another camera. For evening and sunset shows I will use the 300 GM with TC.
p.12 #11 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Not an easy choice, a real head scratcher. The f/8 is a pain don’t know how the canon boys cope with their f/9 on the 200-800.
You could have both for a period and decide then.
trainerKEN wrote:
So... I'm on the fence with this lens (will most likely get it)... For those of you that have this lens and also the 200-600mm, do you feel it's redundant to have both? Or for those that got rid of the 200-600mm have regrets?
My situation is, I often use my 200-600mm WITH the 1.4x TC so I would think the wise decision is to just trade it in and call it a day. However, there are times when there's very little light and I definitely take the 1.4x TC off... I guess I could just shoot at 590mm and get F7.1
p.12 #12 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
trainerKEN wrote:
So... I'm on the fence with this lens (will most likely get it)... For those of you that have this lens and also the 200-600mm, do you feel it's redundant to have both? Or for those that got rid of the 200-600mm have regrets?
My situation is, I often use my 200-600mm WITH the 1.4x TC so I would think the wise decision is to just trade it in and call it a day. However, there are times when there's very little light and I definitely take the 1.4x TC off... I guess I could just shoot at 590mm and get F7.1
Anyway, thanks in advance for any input ...Show more →
I think this is more about you knowing if you will miss the 200-390mm range (if you re-sell the 200-600)
The 400-800 is just 1third stop slower than the 200-600 from 400 to 590mm, then it's faster compared to 200-600+tc1.4
And from what i see, the 200-600 is not a true 600mm, and the 400-800 @590 (so f/7.1) frame the same (even a bit closer, depending on focus distance) as the 200-600 @600.
p.12 #13 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Kooppers wrote:
I think this is more about you knowing if you will miss the 200-390mm range (if you re-sell the 200-600)
The 400-800 is just 1third stop slower than the 200-600 from 400 to 590mm, then it's faster compared to 200-600+tc1.4
And from what i see, the 200-600 is not a true 600mm, and the 400-800 @590 (so f/7.1) frame the same (even a bit closer, depending on focus distance) as the 200-600 @600.
Yeah, I'm pretty much going to get it tomorrow. I'm currently travelling back to Vancouver and will arrive late tonight. Going to go get the boxes of some of my gear out of storage in the morning (I have some stuff I rarely use) and just trade them in
p.12 #14 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
trainerKEN wrote:
So... I'm on the fence with this lens (will most likely get it)... For those of you that have this lens and also the 200-600mm, do you feel it's redundant to have both? Or for those that got rid of the 200-600mm have regrets?
My situation is, I often use my 200-600mm WITH the 1.4x TC so I would think the wise decision is to just trade it in and call it a day. However, there are times when there's very little light and I definitely take the 1.4x TC off... I guess I could just shoot at 590mm and get F7.1
I am pretty much in the same situation. I use my 200-600mm quite often with the TC 1.4, too. So on one hand, the 400-800mm sounds like a great upgrade. 1/3 faster than the TC, a bit sharper, a bit better stabilization, and a bit better AF. But on the other hand, like you mentioned, you can't take off the TC to get to f6.3 when the light starts to fall. You can't take off the TC to get down to 200mm. Also, the 200-600mm is a 3x zoom, and the 400-800 is a 2x zoom, so the ability to zoom out to find a subject won't be as useful, and the zoom won't be as flexible for things like air shows.
If I get the 400-800mm I will probably keep my 200-600mm, but I can't picture bringing both out with me, so then I would have an extra decision if I want to pack for reach or versatility.
Since the 400-800mm came out, I have spent more time than I care to admit trying to decide if it's worth adding to my kit. I wish the specs were just a bit different, say 300-800mm or f7.1 instead of f8. Just to give a clearer indicator, that's its worth adding to my bag.
p.12 #15 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
DWOfPaul wrote:
I am pretty much in the same situation. I use my 200-600mm quite often with the TC 1.4, too. So on one hand, the 400-800mm sounds like a great upgrade. 1/3 faster than the TC, a bit sharper, a bit better stabilization, and a bit better AF. But on the other hand, like you mentioned, you can't take off the TC to get to f6.3 when the light starts to fall. You can't take off the TC to get down to 200mm. Also, the 200-600mm is a 3x zoom, and the 400-800 is a 2x zoom, so the ability to zoom out to find a subject won't be as useful, and the zoom won't be as flexible for things like air shows.
If I get the 400-800mm I will probably keep my 200-600mm, but I can't picture bringing both out with me, so then I would have an extra decision if I want to pack for reach or versatility.
Since the 400-800mm came out, I have spent more time than I care to admit trying to decide if it's worth adding to my kit. I wish the specs were just a bit different, say 300-800mm or f7.1 instead of f8. Just to give a clearer indicator, that's its worth adding to my bag....Show more →
Another dilemma I have is... As of right now, I have several bags that fit the 200-600mm, even with body mounted (AND even with 1.4x TC!), I don't know if they will accommodate the 400-800mm, especially with body mounted. Decisions, decisions
