I am a long term user of the 200-600 having pre ordered years ago in the UK
Both lenses used with my A7R5
I was disappointed with the 400-800
1. Focussing - despite having focus confirmation a large number of shots were not sharp. The lens was held steady whilst I was seated. I also tried various shutter speeds but all at f8/f9.
2. Stabilisation - I found the stabilisation to be rather ineffective, yes, noticeable when off but hardly steady when on.
3. Weight - I found the increase in weight, and bulk over the 200-600 to be quite noticeable and not to be disregarded
4. The lens foot is a joke, way too small without Arca slots and in my opinion needs to be replaced (200-600 has Kirk foot fitted)
5. I found myself always at 800mm (perched birds ) which is where the focus problems started. At close distance, very near min focus everything was fine. Also the weather was quite bright and not the usual UK gloom
I loved the idea of having extra reach over my 200-600. In practice there was no real improvement over my 200-600 which can easily crop in to match the 800
But of course, a sharp picture at 800 would have been better!
The inconsistent sharpness and bulk meant the 400-800 was returned
Any similar experiences or is it just me?
I see very few negatives published, and the YouTube reviewers/influencers all give glowing reports
Mine is as sharp as my 200-600 and yes, with more reach, of course. But it is heavier, larger and more expensive. How about trying another copy of the 400-800 lens? It sounds like yours is a dud...
Before sending it back go and shoot in the early morning before the ground warms up and you won't get any heat distortion. Evenings are a bit of a lottery until about 8pm (UK) as there's still plenty of rising heat off the ground. When sitting because you're closer to the ground you're increasing your chances of heat distortion, especially on open ground.
When we get sunny days I pack up around 9am and switch to fieldwork/watching because of this and the light being harsher, though I must say the last few weeks here have been unprecedented for this time of year.
Did you have a problem with the speed of the 4-8 vs the 2-6? Apart from the (not insubstantial) weight increase I decided against the 4-8 because I really didn't want a lens slower than f/6.3, which already forces me to ISO levels higher than I'd prefer
My first 1/2 a day with the 400-800 was a nightmare. Why... I had the Full Time DMF switch on. With the zoom ring and AF ring being close and very easily moved, I was knocking images out of focus. Once I turned off the function... no issues. Adding a skin to the lens also added some friction to the zoom/AF rings and I've found this to be beneficial as well.
OSS - 1/250th - 1/500th a sec all day long hand-held. I've yet to use a monopod or tripod with the lens. It's also sharper than my 200-600, not a ton but the images are very sharp.
The lens foot is terrible, no argument there... It's since been replaced.
I'd encourage you to give it another shot. It's not impossible you received a dud, my first 200-600 had to go back, it was a mess.
Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with it, the 400-800 has been a "win" for me.
I haven't used my 200-600 at all after getting the 400-800.
For me, the 400-800 does what I want it to do, better than the 200-600.
I bought mine at the end of March, I've been using it non stop since.
mogul wrote:
I kind of agree with the OP, but neither the 200/600 or 400/800 are spectacular compared to the 300 f2.8 which is 2 leagues sharper even with TC's.
I don't share your opinion. While the GM 300mm f/2.8 is a superb lens alright, especially without any TC but both the G zoom lenses are no slouch either. I have encountered many cases where images taken with the G 200-600mm lens at 600mm were virtually indistinguishable as those taken with the GM 600mm lens. I have not used the G 400-800mm lens long enough to be able to say that but based on the fairly short period of time I have been using that lens, the performance of the G 400-800mm is at least on the same level as the G 200-600mm.
mogul wrote:
I kind of agree with the OP, but neither the 200/600 or 400/800 are spectacular compared to the 300 f2.8 which is 2 leagues sharper even with TC's.
I'm not sure I fully agree with this but we all have different experiences with the gear. I rented the 300 and the 2xtc, I own a 1.4tc. I spent the weekend shooting at Bosque del Apache in New Mexico, around 4000 images. I thought the 300 bare was amazing, with the 1.4xtc, little to no degradation, with the 2x, it was still very nice but I don't think the images were sharper than my 200-600 or rendered more fine details. The 400-800 is capable of really sharp images. Of course you have the f-stop advantage with the 300 and the weight. It could have been the 2xtc I rented, it might not have been as sharp as I had expected. I wasn't nearly as "blown away" as I was hoping to be. I might have to give it another try, I do look forward to shooting the 400-800 at Bosque this year, maybe I'll rent the 300 again to see how they compare.
libraland wrote:
1. Focussing - despite having focus confirmation a large number of shots were not sharp. The lens was held steady whilst I was seated. I also tried various shutter speeds but all at f8/f9.
I had this issue a few times as well with my a7rv. Green box, subject out of focus. I asked in the original 400-800 thread and no one else experienced it. So now that makes 2 of us.
Other than that, the other 99% of the time when it actually is in focus, the pics are super sharp.
libraland wrote:
. Also the weather was quite bright and not the usual UK gloom
I'd bet my gear closet that any IQ problems you noticed were due to atmospherics. I'd test again in cloudy weather or in a controlled environment before writing off the lens for IQ vs 200-600.
arbitrage wrote:
I'd bet my gear closet that any IQ problems you noticed were due to atmospherics. I'd test again in cloudy weather or in a controlled environment before writing off the lens for IQ vs 200-600.
Atmospheric debate - additional info:
Here is a photo of the scene, taken from my seated location. Arrows indicate locations of birds (Dartford Warblers)
AFC, DMF off, f8/f9, H+, back button focus, hand held but lens supported on knee, various shutter speeds. Green box over eye, SS on, mode 1, Range = full, mechanical shutter (ready for takeoff/land shots with increased shutter speed - didn’t happen)
Out of a burst of say 10 photos, approx 3 were sharp, 3 nearly sharp, 4 not sharp with blur as if camera focussed somewhere else
If I did not need beyond 600mm and was not almost always at 600mm with my 200-600mm, I would have stuck with it. However, I really appreciate the range of the 400-800mm. I also think my copy is sharper than my 200-600mm which was very good. Yes it is heavier and larger. My preference is the 400-800mm.
Also, I second the comment about turning off full time DMF unless you are using it. It is way to easy to tap the focus ring and take one out of focus.
Here is a photo of the scene, taken from my seated location. Arrows indicate locations of birds (Dartford Warblers)
AFC, DMF off, f8/f9, H+, back button focus, hand held but lens supported on knee, various shutter speeds. Green box over eye, SS on, mode 1, Range = full, mechanical shutter (ready for takeoff/land shots with increased shutter speed - didn’t happen)
Out of a burst of say 10 photos, approx 3 were sharp, 3 nearly sharp, 4 not sharp with blur as if camera focussed somewhere else
I took a look at your Warbler shots. Looks like many were just slightly off focus. Sharpest focus looked to be on the closest shoulder/wing rather than the eye
I’m also seeing some slight weird haze/distortion in other areas of the photo. Could be my imagination though.
I say the lens has the potential for some sharp photos. I’d take it out some more before you make a final decision
Here is a photo of the scene, taken from my seated location. Arrows indicate locations of birds (Dartford Warblers)
AFC, DMF off, f8/f9, H+, back button focus, hand held but lens supported on knee, various shutter speeds. Green box over eye, SS on, mode 1, Range = full, mechanical shutter (ready for takeoff/land shots with increased shutter speed - didn’t happen)
Out of a burst of say 10 photos, approx 3 were sharp, 3 nearly sharp, 4 not sharp with blur as if camera focussed somewhere else
As arbitrage said, perfectly normal case of running into atmospherics. The sun is already quite high and with little wind the heat collected by the ground will transfer to the air and bubble up. With your longer lens comes higher magnification, multiplied by additional air (with more bubbles) you can now shoot through. Hence the effect is generally worse than for shorter lenses.
AGeoJO wrote:
I don't share your opinion. While the GM 300mm f/2.8 is a superb lens alright, especially without any TC but both the G zoom lenses are no slouch either. I have encountered many cases where images taken with the G 200-600mm lens at 600mm were virtually indistinguishable as those taken with the GM 600mm lens. I have not used the G 400-800mm lens long enough to be able to say that but based on the fairly short period of time I have been using that lens, the performance of the G 400-800mm is at least on the same level as the G 200-600mm....Show more →
If you want the opinion of someone who's spent a lot of time tediously putting all four through their paces... At 600, the 200-600 looks good, but the 300+2x holds more detail, which may not be so obvious in like shots where the entire frame's used and viewed at the same size, but it really starts to matter when 600's not enough and you have to crop. Then, I believe, anyone would appreciate the differences. The 400-800, on the other hand, keeps up with the 300+2x from infinity down to about 20m, where it starts to pull ahead because that's the 2x's kryponite; close focus. And 600-800 is significantly stronger than the 200-600 with the 1.4x.
So I fully believe the people who are saying their 400-800s are an upgrade from an optical perspective over the 200-600. It turned my head when I was testing with it. I wouldn't want to travel with it (or anything bigger than my 300GM), but I'm thinking it might be worth it for local hikes and car-based trips. I may look for a used copy somewhere down the line.
That said, the prime's still the champ, and it's not as close as you're making it sound. Sigma's 300-600/4 puts up a better fight there.
mogul wrote:
I kind of agree with the OP, but neither the 200/600 or 400/800 are spectacular compared to the 300 f2.8 which is 2 leagues sharper even with TC's.
This is not my experience with the 400-800 vs 300GM and 2x. I would agree that the 300 with 2x is as good (maybe better) as the 200-600 and you don’t have any focus breathing like the zoom. But my copy of the 400-800 did extremely well in side by side testing against my new 300 and 2x at 10, 20 and 50 meters. My copy of the 200-600 isn’t as good as my copy of the 400-800. I think I have good copies of both. I tested on both the A1ii and A7R5. In a blind test I would find it difficult to choose between the 300/2x and 400-800 at 420mm, most of the time. When I did see a difference it was almost always that the 400-800 was *slightly* better in AFC then the 300/2x. This went away with the bare lens or 1.4x.
I would use the 300 with the 1.4x. The advantage is more than a stop of ISO and subject isolation. IQ is still slightly better than the zoom. Not so much with the 2x. I couldn’t see anywhere the 300/2x was better so I’d rather the flexibility of framing with the zoom.
So far my AF results have been fantastic. Focus acquisition has been fast and once on, tenacious. My AFC is tweaked a bit to keep the focus on the acquired subject.
I really like the 400-800 I have. I suspect something is going on with the copy the OP had.
Here is a photo of the scene, taken from my seated location. Arrows indicate locations of birds (Dartford Warblers)
AFC, DMF off, f8/f9, H+, back button focus, hand held but lens supported on knee, various shutter speeds. Green box over eye, SS on, mode 1, Range = full, mechanical shutter (ready for takeoff/land shots with increased shutter speed - didn’t happen)
Out of a burst of say 10 photos, approx 3 were sharp, 3 nearly sharp, 4 not sharp with blur as if camera focussed somewhere else
I didn’t realise that heat haze was so variable, and at such short distances
(Ref supplied picture)
Over a period of 1 second to give (approximately) 3 sharp, 3 sharpish, 4 non sharp images
(A7R5, supported, H+, afc, back button focusing held down, compressed raw, mechanical shutter, gives 10 fps)
I would have thought that the heat haze would have affected all the pictures in a burst
Also wouldn’t the “haze” inhibit focus confirmation? (Green box)
But I bow to greater experience
I (the original poster) have already returned the 400-800 lens.
As the UK grey price has dropped below £2000 I have a replacement on order
The whole episode made me more appreciative of my 200-600 which is back from repair. The front element came loose and after I tightened it the sealing gasket needed replacing! (@Fixation UK)
So I couldn’t do direct comparisons but even though the 200-600 is a bit weighty, but lighter and slimmer than the 400-800, there is something reassuring about 600 @ f/6.3
It’s a great and versatile lens
I didn’t realise that heat haze was so variable, and at such short distances
(Ref supplied picture)
Over a period of 1 second to give (approximately) 3 sharp, 3 sharpish, 4 non sharp images
(A7R5, supported, H+, afc, back button focusing held down, compressed raw, mechanical shutter, gives 10 fps)
I would have thought that the heat haze would have affected all the pictures in a burst
Also wouldn’t the “haze” inhibit focus confirmation? (Green box)
But I bow to greater experience
I (the original poster) have already returned the 400-800 lens.
As the UK grey price has dropped below £2000 I have a replacement on order
The whole episode made me more appreciative of my 200-600 which is back from repair. The front element came loose and after I tightened it the sealing gasket needed replacing! (@Fixation UK)
So I couldn’t do direct comparisons but even though the 200-600 is a bit weighty, but lighter and slimmer than the 400-800, there is something reassuring about 600 @ f/6.3
It’s a great and versatile lens
Avoid H+ with mechanical shutter - stick with H (7fps). H+ will affect the EVF and the focus reliability once you start shooting.
Heat haze is cause by heat gradient in the air and as such can vary from one second to the next depending on the amount of movement in the air, wind strength, heat gradient etc..
A yes heat haze affects the camera's ability to lock focus because the camera may be confused by the changing image it is seeing when there is heat haze around. Sharp edges especially will not appear sharp if there is heat haze and will create problems for the camera.
