Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #14 · New Great White(s) Rumored | |
ilkka_nissila wrote:
This is not equally true of both brands (if we talk about the 100-500 & 200-800 for Canon and 200-600 & 400-800 for Sony), as the Sony lenses are about 1/3 stop faster, focal length for focal length, and this aperture advantage continues to be there (and even more poignant) if you need to crop a bit.
These Canon lenses win on compactness & collapsibility for transport, whereas these Sony lenses have internal zoom and a bit faster apertures at most focal lengths. Internal zooming is a big practical advantage when working on a tripod or monopod, as you don't need to correct the balance every time you adjust the focal length, and may also make the lenses more rugged since the exterior remains fixed in shape. Internal zooms are often faster to zoom and do not require as much force to use. 1/3 stop is 1/3 stop - it is not zero, and it continues to affect images as you crop. Lighter weight is of value obviously, but IMO these apertures like f/7.1, f/9 really limit the kind of conditions in which you can shoot, and it gets worse if you need to crop. Of course, a much faster aperture like in a 600mm f/4 would help, but then again it is arguably beyond the means of most photographers (and often also beyond their willingness to carry and use). And images from lenses like the 600/4 often show a bit of a hazy veil so the damage to image quality due to long distance & high magnification hasn't really gone away completely. So, the solution for the best results might just be patience and waiting until the subject gets close enough, and researching conditions and locations that can get you to such situations more often....Show more →
I agree totally with the Canon 200-800 vs. the Sony 400-800. The Sony is a third of a stop faster, quite a bit heavier, and almost double the price. A third of a stop is a third of a stop as you say. Not nothing, but not a big difference either. And yes, the Canon extends when zooming and the Sony does not. There are of course tradeoffs there too. Zooms that extend have the balance issues you mention, and may not be as rugged, but they pack substantially smaller. For me that advantage is not insignificant, but that is of course a personal preference issue.
With the Canon 100-500L it of course is most directly comparable with the Sony 100-400 GM. They are more similar lenses and I think the Canon has a slight advantage over the Sony just as it does over the Canon EF 100-400L II. The Sony and the Canon EF II lenses are pretty similar. When comparing the Canon 100-500L vs. the Sony 200-600, the Canon is a lot lighter and brighter from 200 to about 400, whereas above 400 the Sony starts to be brighter and more capable at the expense of being heavier. Again the Canon zoom extends and has the same weaknesses and strengths as above.
If you compare the Sony 200-600 to the Canon 200-800, then it gets trickier, but I would say the Sony has an advantage from 200-575 (that is really all the Sony is for they typical shorter shooting distances as it breathes a lot), but once you either add the TC to the Sony, which significantly slows the AF, or you start to crop the Sony to match the perspective of the Canon and lose resolution, the Canon is a better option. So, the Sony has an advantage from 200-575 or so, but the Canon has an advantage from 575 to 800. Note that is the general pattern regardless of which direction one is comparing brands. When we are talking about these variable aperture zooms and one is natively longer than the other, the shorter lens will be stronger at the shorter focal lengths and the longer lens will have advantages at the longer focal lengths.
So, to summarize in comparing to the Sony 200-600, I would say the Canon 100-500L has an advantage over the Sony 200-600 up until 400mm or so, and the Canon 200-800 has an advantage from 575-800 or so that is a bit smaller. If you shoot primarily from 400 to 575 or so, then the Sony 200-600 has an advantage. Sony is an internally zooming lens, which is probably a bit more rugged and helps the lens balance on a tripod or gimbal but that comes with the cost of a bigger physical size especially when the lens is packed.
My own personal perspective, is that I won't miss the 200-600 that much even though I liked the lens quite a bit, because the options for Canon have their own strengths and weaknesses and those basically offset the strengths and weaknesses of the Sony for me.
One last thing, the haze issue at longer focal lengths is certainly there, but for my purposes--shooting song birds--it is rarely an issue as focal distance often aren't that long even for 800mm shots. The goal is the fill the frame with a pretty small target and for that application having the reach ends up mattering and haze isn't something that affects hardly any shots. I think that is also a fairly common use of such lenses.
|
