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!
Some people may get caught by headlines, but the reality is: there is no free lunch.
Even though the Sony is lighter, cheaper, closer focusing. It's a stretched 400mm design (keeping the same MFD, like using a 1.4x) instead of a dedicated 600mm, so it is less sharp with more colour fringing.
Similar principle to letting distortion go to insanely high figures, arguing that people can't see the drawbacks of corrections (spoiler alert: they are still there).
padam19 wrote:
[so it is less sharp with more colour fringing.
Similar principle to letting distortion go to insanely high figures, arguing that people can't see the drawbacks of corrections (spoiler alert: they are still there).
gordonyz wrote:
Need a 400/4.5 with tc comparison to 600 f6.3
I am sure we will eventually see that, but DCW did a sharpness and fringing test for both and we can see that the 400mm f4.5 is better as expected, based on what we have seen in the optical design..
The 600 sharpness test by the same site shows performance similar to the 200-600 although they say in a different article that the corner performance of the prime exceeds that of the zoom’s. A little underwhelming if I’m being honest. Sharpness certainly isn’t the only measure of a lens, but it’s not as encouraging as I’d prefer.
hoodlum90 wrote:
I am sure we will eventually see that, but DCW did a sharpness and fringing test for both and we can see that the 400mm f4.5 is better as expected, based on what we have seen in the optical design..
I wonder if the sharpness difference has something to do with subject distance. The MTF charts released by Sony are extremely close. It would definitely be a bit disappointing if the 600mm f6.3 was not noticeably sharper than the 200-600mm f6.3 and with the TC 1.4 was not at least as sharp as the 400-800mm f8.
Justin Stone wrote:
The 600 sharpness test by the same site shows performance similar to the 200-600. A little underwhelming if I’m being honest. Sharpness certainly isn’t the only measure of a lens, but it’s not as encouraging as I’d prefer.
Charts shmarts lol, looks plenty sharp to me. https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/55529832681/in/album-72177720335616238
edit: I'll eat some crow here, looking at those shots, i can see an aviary frame structure in the birds eye, which means there probably super close to the camera and not really wild birds. Oh well, still shows off the sharpness, but i want to see real world examples of real birds that can fly away.
Jemini wrote:
What happened to Steve Perry and Jan Wegener? Didn't they get copies to test? These are two reviewers I trust most these days
Steve is in Africa and posted on his BCG Forums that Sony wasn't able to get him the lesnes because he was away. He hopes to get them to test once he is back.
Not sure about Jan. He often uploads on Wednesdays so maybe he will just keep to his regular schedule.
ChrisMak wrote:
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.
Not the case with Nikon’s two lenses. The 600/6.3 PF is sharper than the 400/4.5 S. Whichever is the least sharp of the Sony pair will undoubtedly be sharp enough. I wouldn’t worry about it.
600mm f/6.3 is a great travel lens, wish it was f/5.6
Unlike the 600 f/4 GM it does not include any aspherical elements or Calcium Fluoride elements instead it uses super ED and ED glass... key to keeping the cost manageable. The optical performance is not going to be 600 f/4 GM level but it is probably better than any zoom lens and or zoom + TC combo. I will do some measurements on the lens when I receive it
Cliff L. wrote:
Not necessarily - I felt that the 300 + 2x TC was sharper than my last copy of the Nikon Z 600mm f6.3.
There’s a few comparisons out there on various forums and all concluded the Z 600 6.3 is sharper than the 300 + 2x TC. 2x TC inevitably causes too much degradation.
That is the entirety of the thing. To many, comfort and ease of use with size and weight, is all that matters. The 100-400 4.4 is too bulky for me to travel with, and too heavy for what it is. So, not something I am even remotely interested in.
Light and maneuverable= fun and also travel friendly.
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.
Justin Stone wrote:
The 600 sharpness test by the same site shows performance similar to the 200-600 although they say in a different article that the corner performance of the prime exceeds that of the zoom’s. A little underwhelming if I’m being honest. Sharpness certainly isn’t the only measure of a lens, but it’s not as encouraging as I’d prefer.
We will see if they really put a GM tag on a product at that level. Would be a real shame.
The best way to see if this is the case will be the performance with the 1.4x TC. On the 200-600 I think it is really poor unless I stop down to f11 and you can forget about the autofocus. I am aware of others who swear by the combo but it never really worked for me.
Guys, this video has what we all want to know, test chart sharpness with TC and vs. 400-800 or 300 2.8 with tc.
Rank of sharpness (from me, but honestly hard to tell after Youtube compression)
1. 400mm 4.5
2. 600mm 6.3 (tiny bit less sharp)
3. 400mm w/ 1.4x (another tiny bit less)
4. 400-800mm at 600mm f/8 & 300mm 2.8 w/ 2.0x @600mm about the same
The 400/4.5 looks like a total winner. I was always interested in the Nikon version but not quite enamoured by the price. The Sony version is cheaper and lighter. A slowish telephoto with 22 elements (4 of special glass) is going to be highly corrected. My old Canon 300/5.6 is highly corrected with 7 elements (3 of them special). I like that the Sony has a permanent collar for rotation since the detachable ones are generally quite wobbly.
