I need to go back and check out my focal lengths most used with high school Lacrosse this past year to confirm what I'm thinking...always taken with a 70-200 2.8II, adding/subtracting TC's based on lighting/shooting position.
Thinking this 400 4.5 could be the solution for all situations, while also being small/light and a reasonable price for what you get. On my A1 I could see this being a beast for field sports that I can also travel with for whale season in Hawaii etc.
CPWarner wrote:
The only thing compelling about the 600mm f/6.3 is the size and weight. Otherwise, the flexibility of the 400-800 or the 100-400 f/4.5 with 1.4X make them more useful. I find the 100-400 f/4.5 is excellent and handles the 1.4X very well. So my needs from 100-560mm are taken care of with similar apertures to the new offerings. I can only see getting the 600 f/6.3 if it is sharper than the 400-800 at 600 and handles the 1.4X very well. Then it might replace the 400-800mm in my bag.
I'd hope that a GM-class prime would do better than a G-class zoom.
If it handles the 1.4X TC well, the close focusing will also be better. The 400-800 has a surprisingly poor maximum magnification for a zoom lens with focus breathing.
I'd however guess that a good copy of the 400-800 would be equal or sharper. Pure speculation on my part.
CPWarner wrote:
The only thing compelling about the 600mm f/6.3 is the size and weight. Otherwise, the flexibility of the 400-800 or the 100-400 f/4.5 with 1.4X make them more useful. I find the 100-400 f/4.5 is excellent and handles the 1.4X very well. So my needs from 100-560mm are taken care of with similar apertures to the new offerings. I can only see getting the 600 f/6.3 if it is sharper than the 400-800 at 600 and handles the 1.4X very well. Then it might replace the 400-800mm in my bag.
Not the only thing. It can also get you to 840mm with just one TC.
gocolts wrote:
I need to go back and check out my focal lengths most used with high school Lacrosse this past year to confirm what I'm thinking...always taken with a 70-200 2.8II, adding/subtracting TC's based on lighting/shooting position.
Thinking this 400 4.5 could be the solution for all situations, while also being small/light and a reasonable price for what you get. On my A1 I could see this being a beast for field sports that I can also travel with for whale season in Hawaii etc.
Similar thoughts here; I love my GM2 as well and the 400/4.5 goes along with that incredibly well.
It's definitely impressive how light these lenses are, and they seem fairly priced. I didn't think the 400mm f4.5 would be about 40% lighter and cheaper than the 100-400mm f4.5.
Personally, I am curious to see how they handle the TC 2x. A 40mm f4.5 / 560mm f6.3 / 800mm f9 all in one could be very convenient. At first, the 100-400mm f4.5 was tempting me as a one lens telephoto solution, but the 2x performance seems to be a bit hit or miss, unlike the 300mm f2.8. Hopefully the new lenses being primes will perform closer to the 300mm f2.8 with TCs.
Overall, I am sure these will be popular lenses for Sony wildlife photographers looking for a lighter lens, or for Sony photographers starting to get into wildlife photography. I can't deny, though, that part of me is a bit disappointed that 3+ years after Nikon released similar lenses, Sony didn't do something even more unique, like make them a 400mm f4 and 600mm f5.6. We now have basically 4 ways to get to 600/560mm f6.3. 200-600mm f6.3, 600mm f6.3, 400mm f4.5 + TC 1.4x, and 100-400mm f4.5 + TC 1.4x. An additionaly 5 ways to get to 800/840mm f8/f9 400-800mm f8, 100-400mm f4.5 + TC 2x, 200-600mm f6.3 + TC 1.4x, 600mm f6.3 + TC 1.4x, and 400mm f4.5 + TC 2x.
Unfortunately, we do not own the 300mm f/2.8, but we wish we did! It has actually been Wanda's favorite lens recently—we had a loaner for two trips, so we weren't able to make any direct side-by-side comparisons between the 300mm and these new lenses.
Having used the 300mm f/2.8 a few times, it is really fun to shoot with. But as far as I remember, it definitely felt heavier than the new ones. Overall, it's about a 0.5 kg difference, plus teleconverters if you use them. 1 kg telephotos are really mind-blowing—the first time you pick one up and see its size, you naturally expect a much heavier lens. For birds in flight, shooting hanging off decks, and general handholding maneuverability, nothing beats these new releases.
I would always say: try before you buy. That said, I'm certain no one will be disappointed by the optics, and everyone will be impressed by the weight and handling. My everyday lens is a 3 kg one, and I almost never shoot anything in between. Maybe that's part of the reason I was so blown away by their usability....Show more →
Thanks.
And yes, the 300/2.8 + 2xTC is going to feel quite a bit heavier, clearly. I’ll sure be interested to see how the 600 feels (I wonder if anyone will say that it’s too light and swings too easily?? ). Certainly, if the IQ is any better than the 300 + TC, I’m going to be pretty tempted ….
All in all, it’s a very good video about the new lenses, as it’s very thorough and detailed.
However, the weight comparisons he makes in the video with other Sony lenses—such as the zoom lenses—as well as the direct comparison with the two Nikon Z counterparts, are somewhat skewed.
There, he compares the weight of the two new Sony lenses—without the tripod foot—to the weight of the competing lenses, which include the tripod foot.
So, unfortunately, the comparison is somewhat skewed in favor of the two Sony lenses to make the differences seem even more impressive—though that doesn’t change the fact that the specs are impressive.
The difference between the new Sony 400/4.5 and the Nikon Z 400/4.5 is therefore only 166 grams when comparing both without a tripod base—not 251 grams, as claimed in the video.
Unfortunately, the percentage figures are also inflated when comparing the weight of one lens without a tripod base and the other with one.
In this way, he calculates a weight difference of 25% with both 400/4.5 Sony/Nikon, but under identical conditions (without the tripod base), the difference is actually 16.7%.
This shouldn’t happen, though, because it makes the whole thing seem a bit unprofessional.
He’s a brand ambassador, but using such tricks to make them look even more impressive in the weight comparisons—those two lenses don't need such trickery at all.
Vento wrote:
All in all, it’s a very good video about the new lenses, as it’s very thorough and detailed.
However, the weight comparisons he makes in the video with other Sony lenses—such as the zoom lenses—as well as the direct comparison with the two Nikon Z counterparts, are somewhat skewed.
There, he compares the weight of the two new Sony lenses—without the tripod foot—to the weight of the competing lenses, which include the tripod foot.
So, unfortunately, the comparison is somewhat skewed in favor of the two Sony lenses to make the differences seem even more impressive—though that doesn’t change the fact that the specs are impressive.
The difference between the new Sony 400/4.5 and the Nikon Z 400/4.5 is therefore only 166 grams when comparing both without a tripod base—not 251 grams, as claimed in the video.
Unfortunately, the percentage figures are also inflated when comparing the weight of one lens without a tripod base and the other with one.
This shouldn’t happen, though, because it makes the whole thing seem a bit unprofessional.
He’s a brand ambassador, but using such tricks to make them look even more impressive in the weight comparisons—those two lenses don't need such trickery at all....Show more →
He's a Sony ambassador. What else do you expect? . I watch his reviews just to know the product and details which he does a great job.
Vento wrote:
All in all, it’s a very good video about the new lenses, as it’s very thorough and detailed.
However, the weight comparisons he makes in the video with other Sony lenses—such as the zoom lenses—as well as the direct comparison with the two Nikon Z counterparts, are somewhat skewed.
There, he compares the weight of the two new Sony lenses—without the tripod foot—to the weight of the competing lenses, which include the tripod foot.
So, unfortunately, the comparison is somewhat skewed in favor of the two Sony lenses to make the differences seem even more impressive—though that doesn’t change the fact that the specs are impressive.
The difference between the new Sony 400/4.5 and the Nikon Z 400/4.5 is therefore only 166 grams when comparing both without a tripod base—not 251 grams, as claimed in the video.
Unfortunately, the percentage figures are also inflated when comparing the weight of one lens without a tripod base and the other with one.
This shouldn’t happen, though, because it makes the whole thing seem a bit unprofessional.
He’s a brand ambassador, but using such tricks to make them look even more impressive in the weight comparisons—those two lenses don't need such trickery at all....Show more →
Personally, all of these videos no matter who produces them or backs the specs of the lenses, until it's in my hands and I'm shooting with it, I consider them informational and only starting points. You can have "sniff tests", compare them to other zooms with or without their feet... etc. Until I shoot with it, I'm never 100% sure the lens will be a fit for me or perform to my standards or fit my style of shooting. I'm not saying your points are not valid It's a great time to be a photographer with so many lens/camera choices....most of which perform so much better than what we were shooting with 10-15 years ago. It's an exciting time IMO
pdog109 wrote:
I want to assume that the 600 6.3 will offer better image quality than the 300+2x TC. That remains to be seen. I'm buying the 600 6.3 anyway because I want to go to 840mm. I might sell the 300 if the 600 6.3 is better, because I'm not a multi-lens user.
You make a good point about the appeal of going up to 840 (or 1200) with the 600. However, as for comparing image quality b/t the two setups, I suspect that they will be so close that field variables will play a larger role in determining which rig is preferable.
Vento wrote:
All in all, it’s a very good video about the new lenses, as it’s very thorough and detailed.
However, the weight comparisons he makes in the video with other Sony lenses—such as the zoom lenses—as well as the direct comparison with the two Nikon Z counterparts, are somewhat skewed.
There, he compares the weight of the two new Sony lenses—without the tripod foot—to the weight of the competing lenses, which include the tripod foot.
So, unfortunately, the comparison is somewhat skewed in favor of the two Sony lenses to make the differences seem even more impressive—though that doesn’t change the fact that the specs are impressive.
The difference between the new Sony 400/4.5 and the Nikon Z 400/4.5 is therefore only 166 grams when comparing both without a tripod base—not 251 grams, as claimed in the video.
Unfortunately, the percentage figures are also inflated when comparing the weight of one lens without a tripod base and the other with one.
In this way, he calculates a weight difference of 25% with both 400/4.5 Sony/Nikon, but under identical conditions (without the tripod base), the difference is actually 16.7%.
This shouldn’t happen, though, because it makes the whole thing seem a bit unprofessional.
He’s a brand ambassador, but using such tricks to make them look even more impressive in the weight comparisons—those two lenses don't need such trickery at all....Show more →
400/4.5
A complete lens with hood, foot, front and rear cap: 1248g
Lens with back and front cap: 1042g
Naked lens: 991g
Measured on a kitchen scale. It is off by 4g - 3 for the lens and 1 for the dirt it gathered on a beach
Edit: but lens weight is one side of the coin. The other is the setup weight. And Nikon decent cameras are a bit heavier too - z8 or even z9.
Jemini wrote:
He's a Sony ambassador. What else do you expect? . I watch his reviews just to know the product and details which he does a great job.
I expect what he otherwise exudes: professionalism, even in the details.
Sure, he’s a brand ambassador, and his job is naturally to make people’s mouths water, but he can do that without resorting to such gimmicks.
The two new lenses don’t need that at all, since they still perform outstandingly even in a fair weight comparison.
Dustin Abbott shared weight scale measurement of the 400/4.5 lens with foot, hood and rear cap came to 1.216kg. On his scale without the hood, foot or rear cap he got 998g. I don't know if he had the front cap on for the 1.2kg measurement.
I am quite tempted by the 400/4.5. Have been eyeing the Sigma 500/5.6 for a year and a half at least but it has never received a discount during that time and compared to this, well I can get the SEL14TC and the 400/4,5 for the price of the Sigma 500/5,6 (Swedish retail prices)
560/6,3 for when lots of lumen in the scene, 400/4,5 most of the time.
It is actually incredible that the new Sony 600mm is almost 0,5kg LIGHTER than the Nikon Z 600mm PF that I own... It's also HALF the weight of the Sony 200-600mm or Nikon Z 180-600mm... I am tempted to switch!
This is the second review I came to a conclusion that 400 is sharper. I'm definitely getting 400 and use it with 1.4x and occasionally with 2X
It is inevitable that the 400/4.5 is the sharper lens of the two simply because it is a f4.5 lens, it catches much more light.
I will still be getting the 600/6.3 myself, because it is 1,5x the focal length, but purely from an image quality point of view I would prefer the 400/4.5.
ZeeMike wrote:
It is actually incredible that the new Sony 600mm is almost 0,5kg LIGHTER than the Nikon Z 600mm PF that I own... It's also HALF the weight of the Sony 200-600mm or Nikon Z 180-600mm... I am tempted to switch!
It weighs 395 grams less than the 600/6.3 PF, under identical test conditions—that is, with both lenses without a tripod foot, rather than one without and the other with.
But that doesn’t make it any less impressive; it’s just that the figure is only accurate under identical conditions for comparison.
). Certainly, if the IQ is any better than the 300 + TC, I’m going to be pretty tempted ….