p.1 #1 · If you could redesign the Sony telephoto roadmap for nature/wildlife, what would you change?
There has been a lot of discussion on the 100-400mm f4.5 GM thread about what users hoped the lens would be, what it could or could not replace in their kit, and some level of disappoint and joy. It seems like it will meet the needs of most sports photographers, but for the nature but seems like a mixed bag. Clearly, I am guilty of advancing that dialog. So, to try and not completely highjack that thread, I decided to start a new one here focused on the needs want and desires of nature photographers.
If you could go back in time and influence the Sony roadmap for their Telephoto line up 1) what would you keep? 2) What would you ditch? 3) What would you want that is different and what comprises would you make to keep the number of SKU's reasonable or prices reasonable.
I will go first and you can add your thoughts or criticize mine.
What I own or have owned: 70-200mm GMII and GII, 100-400 f4.5-5.6, 300GM, 400-800, 200-600 (sold), 70-300mm (Sold)
1) I would keep the 300GM as it is light sharp and fantastic with teleconverters. A bit shorter that ideal but a keeper. I would keep the 600 GM in the line-up as it is fantastic performer, I would keep both the 70-200 II's in the line-up, and I would consider keeping the 400-800 if my new lenses could not happen like the 300-600mm f5.6 GM.
2) Lenses I would drop: 70-300mm which is trash, current 200-600 which doesn't go to 600 and has spotty AF and high sharpness variability, both of the new 100-400mm lenses, from a wildlife perspective, but the 100-400mm f4.5 should hang around for sports as should the 400 f2.8
3) What I would want in the line-up. I have avoided putting integrated 1.4X TC's in everything as that adds too much to the size weight and complexity. It would be nice, but improbable
A) 100-300mm f4 GM 82mm filter to match up to the 16-35GM II and 24-70 GMII for the perfect landscape trio. Needs to be sharp enough to work well with a 1.4X TC. Ideally would be at least 0.25X at 300mm and MFD 0.3X would be better.
B) 300-600mm f5.6 GM Use the same 105mm front element size as the 300mm GM, but maybe not the same exact element. It could be 200-600mm, but I would be happy to sacrifice 100mm on the wide end to get outstanding AF and IQ at the tele end and actually get to 600mm. 605mm would be even better just to be sure it hits 600... Needs to work well 1.4X to yield 840mm f8 MFD at 600 needs to yield 0.25X or better without massive reduction in focal length
C) Nice to haves: Either a 600mm f5.6 GM which is pretty easy since it is just designing a 2X TC that is optimized for the 300mm GM and welding it on the back, or a 500mm f4 GM which would be a whole new design and unfortunately would be heavier than the 600mm 5.6. Either one would need to work well with a that would work well with 1.4X TC and the 500mm would need to behave more like the 300mm GM and 600mm f4 with a 2X TC than the 400mm f2.8 which is not good with a 2X.
If Sony built these my kit would use 100-300 GM for landscape trips. For Large mammal trips the 100-300 and the 300-600mm and for birding trips the 100-300 and the 600mm f5.6 GM I would sell my 100-400, my 400-800 and then decide if I could justify keeping the 300mm GM or if it would be swapped for the 500mm if they built it. Primes are better for feather detail.
