EB-1 wrote:
A 600/6.3 or 400/4.5 are pretty useless from my perspective regardless of weight.
I'd rather have an upgrade to the 200-600/6.3 or at least make a faster 600 than f/6.3 for use with a TC.
EBH
How often do you actually use the 200-500mm range on the 200-600? For me it was ~1% of the time. A lightweight super tele prime with perfect optics is more enjoyable to carry knowing that the long end is really all you likely need.
jeffbuzz wrote:
How often do you actually use the 200-500mm range on the 200-600? For me it was ~1% of the time. A lightweight super tele prime with perfect optics is more enjoyable to carry knowing that the long end is really all you likely need.
Maybe 50-60%. If you are always at 600 mm, then you probably need a longer lens. How often do you have to crop images more than just a little and throw out data?
Obviously there are some significant weight differences with a 600/4 for example, but a pound matters little on the mid-grade lenses you hiking miles or at high altitude. A 1500g 180-600/6.3 would be awesome.
Nikon 400 4.5 is not PF, (600 6.3 is)
Sigma 500 5.6 is similar weight to Nikon 500 5.6 PF.
Sony 300 2.8 has no equivalent but is very low weight.
There no longer seems to be a weight advantage for PF.
ElvisD wrote:
A 600mm f/6.3 GM lens would be impressive at that weight.
The Nikkor version weighs nearly a pound more and it is a phase fresnel lens.
Does your source have any indication if these are PF lenses?
If they're not, how else might Sony be able to realize that kind of weight reduction, especially for a GM lens?
