Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.9 #19 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market? | |
shadow9d9 wrote:
Are they? Stuck at one focal length, pf drawbacks, and not fast. I don't see how they are better than the sony 100-400, 200-600, or 400-800. I see them as more expensive and more limited, at barely a difference in speed.
Let's examine that claim. Nikon has a 400 f/4.5S (this is not a PF lens) but weighs just 1160g. It of course has no PF drawbacks and as far as I can tell is a sharp fast focussing lens. It costs $3,500 at B & H new.
If you want to compare it to a Sony lens then you could compare it to the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM. That lens weighs 1395g and is a sharp fast focussing lens. At 400mm it is 2/3rds of a stop (i.e., let's in 66% less light) than the Nikon lens. It costs $3,143.
So the Nikon lens is 10% more expensive, but both lighter and faster. There is the typical zoom vs. prime tradeoff, so if you want a zoom the Nikon won't do and if you want a prime the Sony won't do. Of course if you have the Nikon system and you want a zoom, you can just buy the Nikon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, which is very similar to the Sony in everything save price where it is substantially cheaper at $2,450. It is hard to see how Nikon is behind in this comparison.
Perhaps you want to compare the Nikon 400 f/4.5S to the Sony 300 f/2.8 GM with the 1.4X TC, which I think is a relevant comparison.
The Sony 300 f/2.8 GM with the 1.4X TC weighs 1637g so close to 50% heavier. It is just a third of a stop faster, but is certainly a sharp fast focussing lens. This combo costs $7,050 at B & H new. So over twice the price of the Nikon lens.
To me the Nikon lens is a midlevel price, whereas the Sony 300 f/2.8 GM plus TC is a high level price. We can compare them and get a small advantage for the Sony but at a huge increase in price.
Ok, let's look at 600mm. Nikon has the 600 f/6.3S PF. It weighs just 1,470g. If you are bothered by PF bokeh the lens is of course not for you, but personally I am not bothered by the images from this lens. It costs $5,200. It is a sharp fast focussing lens.
Of course we looked at the Sony lens with a TC so we can also look at Nikon lenses with a TC. The Nikon 400 f/4.5S with a 1.4X TC gets us in the vicinity of 600mm. The Nikon TC adds 220g and $590 to the Nikon 400 f/4.5S giving it a weight of 1,380g and a cost of $4,100. This is a second great option for Nikon at near 600mm.
Let's compare that to the Sony option for a zoom. Sony has a very nice 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G (full disclosure this is the lens that I personally own at this point). It weighs 2,115g and costs $2,100 new at B & H. It is sharp and focusses fast, but is a lot heavier than the Nikon prime options. It is substantially cheaper, however. In my view in this comparison what we are seeing is a lower level lens vs. a mid level lens and of course a zoom vs. a prime. If you want a zoom with Nikon you can of course get the similar 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 Nikon lens. It has almost the same price, is a little lighter but as a non-S lens is missing some of the features of the top Nikon lenses.
We can again compare the Nikon primes to the Sony 300 f/2.8 GM now with a 2X TC. One of the wonders of this lens is that it works well with the 2X TC and still focuses fast. The weight is just a bit more at 1,677g than either Nikon option and the price is $7,100, so at least $2,000 more but you do get a third of a stop faster aperture for that money and price. I think Sony is closer if you want 600mm but it is still a really pricey option and in my view still goes beyond midlevel. Still I think if the Sony at 600mm and f/5.6 is exactly what you want it is a really good option and much closer in value than at 400mm.
Now let's look at 800mm. Nikon has the 800 f/6.3 PF. It weighs 2,385g and costs $7,000 new at B & H. I don't think this is really a midlevel lens anymore, but if you consider it that. It is a very unique offering at this weight, focal length, and aperture.
The only way to get close to this from Sony in a prime is the 600 f/4 GM plus the 1.4X TC. This increases the weight to 3250g and the pushes the price past $14,000 and you still are only a third of a stop faster in aperture. This comparison sort of make the Nikon 800 PF look midlevel in price and low in weight, but again I don't think it real is either.
Sony can get to 800mm with the new 400-800 f/6.3-8.0G zoom lens. It is only a little heavier than the Nikon prime at 2,470g, and it is substantially cheaper at $3,300. I see it a less than midlevel option, however, as that f/8 aperture I think is quite limiting. I do think if you want a zoom and you want 800mm that this lens is an interesting option for Sony shooter, but it isn't that much different from the 200-600 with a 1.4X TC (that combo is only a third of a stop slower) or on Nikon 180-600 with a 1.4X TC. Personally, I find the aperture to be just too slow with the 200-600 and the TC and I am pretty sure I would feel the same way about the 400-800, but others might feel differently.
If fact, here at 800mm it is really clear, to me anyway, that Sony has a lower level option and a very high level option, but nothing in between. Sure you might be happy with Sony's options, but personally if I wanted to shoot at 800mm, which I don't want to hardly ever (and that is why I have the 200-600), then I would want something faster than the 400-800 and want something smaller and a lot cheaper than the 600 f/4 GM with a 1.4X TC. Nikon has that sort of midlevel option (and the low and high option) that Sony does not.
|
