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?
I’m surprised the weights are the same.
Nikon’s aren’t the same and their 600 is PF which should lower the weight closer to their non-PF 400 but they are still aren’t equal.
400/4.5 (not PF): 1.24kg
600/6.3PF: 1.47kg
But…..SAR did rumor these lenses a few weeks ago and just this morning has a tease that they are announcing these two lenses very soon and they are the lightest out there. I hope he has additional sources and just didn’t see this thread
The weights (if correct) are a huge achievement. Especially the 600/6.3 which I’d assume isn’t PF/DO as Sony has never made one.
I’ll certainly be tempted by both of these. Would probably go for the 600 IF it can outperform the 300GM/2xTC. Shaving more than half a kilo off of the 300/2x would be killer. Of course I’d also be tempted by the 400 as it then can work as 400/4.5 or 600/6.3. But owning the 300GM and the 100-400/4.5GM would start to be too much. I’d probably start to look at selling the 100-400GM. I’m already starting to shift my use away from the new lens and back to the 300GM now that the honeymoon period is over.
He did mention in his video, that he knows the specs are real because he already had that info prior to the FM post.
He already was making a video and was going to release it tomorrow, then this FM post happened, prompting him to make the new video.
So that part is encouraging I'd hope?
The only thing he seems to discount is whether the prices can be that cheap.
If the price/specs come in as rumored, that should be a knock out of the park against Nikon. All I hope is that they didn't trade too much quality for the weight/price savings. I'd prefer more expensive lenses that are optically superior to the Nikon, rather than cheaper ones that aren't as good in the name of price/weight savings.
Its downright annoying from Sony- Its almost impossible to ignore that its by far the best all around system on the market.
I think the one thing truly holding sony back on its bodies is the lack of in camera raw video footage but that is really the only thing one could look at IMO-
arbitrage wrote:
I’m surprised the weights are the same.
Nikon’s aren’t the same and their 600 is PF which should lower the weight closer to their non-PF 400 but they are still aren’t equal.
400/4.5 (not PF): 1.24kg
600/6.3PF: 1.47kg
But…..SAR did rumor these lenses a few weeks ago and just this morning has a tease that they are announcing these two lenses very soon and they are the lightest out there. I hope he has additional sources and just didn’t see this thread
The weights (if correct) are a huge achievement. Especially the 600/6.3 which I’d assume isn’t PF/DO as Sony has never made one.
I’ll certainly be tempted by both of these. Would probably go for the 600 IF it can outperform the 300GM/2xTC. Shaving more than half a kilo off of the 300/2x would be killer. Of course I’d also be tempted by the 400 as it then can work as 400/4.5 or 600/6.3. But owning the 300GM and the 100-400/4.5GM would start to be too much. I’d probably start to look at selling the 100-400GM. I’m already starting to shift my use away from the new lens and back to the 300GM now that the honeymoon period is over.
...Show more →
* specifies the weight is without tripod foot. Nikon’s 400 4.5 is 1160g, 600 6.3 is 1390g without the feet included.
Shaving off ~400g from the 600 6.3 PF is mighty impressive.
160 g under the 400 4.5 seems reasonable, considering a 4+ year old lens.
birderbill1 wrote:
Geez, if they can make them that light I'd rather see a 400/4 or 600/5.6, or maybe even a 500/4 or 4.5.
Maybe, but this seems like a direct marketing attack on those Nikon lenses, I guess someone at Sony grew tired of listening to the YouTube influencers mentioning these lenses as a prime reason to buy Nikon.
birderbill1 wrote:
Geez, if they can make them that light I'd rather see a 400/4 or 600/5.6, or maybe even a 500/4 or 4.5.
A 600/5.6 would be a lot better; then it would at least be practical with a TC. A 1.4x on an f/6.3 lens is well into diffraction at effective f/9 and wide open with a TC is not the best optically anyways. What's the point of 67MP if IQ is 33MP? One may as well just use a 45MP Nikon body.
A 500/4.5 with a 1.4x internally would be great, but I think the Sony market is too wimpy and into the mini prime form factor. I prefer zooms since most species are mobile and of varying sizes/distances so fixed framing is either too tight or cropping is needed, negating the IQ.
nmerc_photos wrote:
He did mention in his video, that he knows the specs are real because he already had that info prior to the FM post.
He already was making a video and was going to release it tomorrow, then this FM post happened, prompting him to make the new video.
So that part is encouraging I'd hope?
The only thing he seems to discount is whether the prices can be that cheap.
If the price/specs come in as rumored, that should be a knock out of the park against Nikon. All I hope is that they didn't trade too much quality for the weight/price savings. I'd prefer more expensive lenses that are optically superior to the Nikon, rather than cheaper ones that aren't as good in the name of price/weight savings....Show more →
That is good to know he already had similar info. I only read the article on SAR and didn't watch the full video. I did hear him very skeptical on the price.
Any new super telephoto lens from any of the big 3 is exciting to me. Even if I never own it I like to have more choice.
I will seriously consider the 600/6.3 if it looks like it can outperform the 300GM/2x for AF and IQ. Leaving the 300GM to be a 300-420mm lens where it shines the most. Seriously would consider selling the 100-400/4.5.
arbitrage wrote:
That is good to know he already had similar info. I only read the article on SAR and didn't watch the full video. I did hear him very skeptical on the price.
Any new super telephoto lens from any of the big 3 is exciting to me. Even if I never own it I like to have more choice.
I will seriously consider the 600/6.3 if it looks like it can outperform the 300GM/2x for AF and IQ. Leaving the 300GM to be a 300-420mm lens where it shines the most. Seriously would consider selling the 100-400/4.5.
I am having a hard time finding usage for my 100-400 f4.5. Not sure where it will fit in what I shoot. I have the 300 GM, 200-600 and 400-800. Sold the 600 GM some months ago. The 100-400 is simply not long enough for me and it's too big for what it is.
What I really like to have is a 600mm f5.6 of similar size and MFD as the 300 GM+2X TC, ideally with a 1.4 TC built in.
arbitrage wrote:
That is good to know he already had similar info. I only read the article on SAR and didn't watch the full video. I did hear him very skeptical on the price.
Any new super telephoto lens from any of the big 3 is exciting to me. Even if I never own it I like to have more choice.
I will seriously consider the 600/6.3 if it looks like it can outperform the 300GM/2x for AF and IQ. Leaving the 300GM to be a 300-420mm lens where it shines the most. Seriously would consider selling the 100-400/4.5.
Same boat here. I haven't tried the 100-400 f4.5 yet, but I don't think it really solves much for me.
300GM + 600 f6.3 would mean two distinct lenses for two situations. I'd probably always keep the 1.4x on the 600 f6.3 for 840mm f9 and it would be great.
I've long said that if there was a system with the 300mm f2.8 and the 800mm f6.3, that would be the endgame for me.
I did try 300GM + 800PF on Nikon bodies, but the Nikon AF was hard to tolerate on native glass, let alone on adapted glass. So this may be the next best thing, and all in the same ecosystem.
EB-1 wrote:
A 600/5.6 would be a lot better; then it would at least be practical with a TC. A 1.4x on an f/6.3 lens is well into diffraction at effective f/9 and wide open with a TC is not the best optically anyways.
Nonsense, the difference is only 1/3 stop. Diffraction already starts well below f8 and 1/3 stop merely means a bit more of it. Will make a difference but wont make or break anything.
