The Sony 400 has about 15% higher centre image-plane resolution than the Sony 600 wide open, whereas with Nikon the 600 actually measures about 11% higher than the Nikon 400/4.5,
However, those are image-plane LW/PH figures. They don't account for how large the same distant subject appears in the frame. At the same shooting position a 600mm lens gives 1.5× as many pixels across the subject linearly.
Distant subject resolution should be proportional to (LW / PH) * focal_length
So despite its approximately 15% lower image-plane LW/PH, the Sony 600/6.3 would still resolve about 30% more detail across the same distant subject from the same position.
I think it is important to distinguish DCW's image MTF result from how much detail you actually get on a bird at a fixed distance.
rico wrote:
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.
I was looking for this. Thanks for the links. It's well known that Nikon 600 is sharper than 400 which ai have. 400 is sharp enough l3ns alone. But poor with TC. If these numbers are true, Sony 400 should be plenty sharp with TC.
It's hard to search this site. Can you please provide the link for 100-400/4.5 or 200-600?
Thanks
aCuria wrote:
DCW’s lab results are interesting when you compare all four lenses:
The Sony 400 has about 15% higher centre image-plane resolution than the Sony 600 wide open, whereas with Nikon the 600 actually measures about 11% higher than the Nikon 400/4.5,
However, those are image-plane LW/PH figures. They don't account for how large the same distant subject appears in the frame. At the same shooting position a 600mm lens gives 1.5× as many pixels across the subject linearly.
Distant subject resolution should be proportional to (LW / PH) * focal_length
So despite its approximately 15% lower image-plane LW/PH, the Sony 600/6.3 would still resolve about 30% more detail across the same distant subject from the same position.
I think it is important to distinguish DCW's image MTF result from how much detail you actually get on a bird at a fixed distance....Show more →
Alan Parker wrote:
There's some info in the link above your post! The 400/4.5 seems to handle the 1.4TC very well.
My fault. Thought it was his video review. Seems like Dustin will relase a comparison between the new lenses and the 200.600, TCs included, based on comments on his Youtube.
aCuria wrote:
I think it is important to distinguish DCW's image MTF result from how much detail you actually get on a bird at a fixed distance.
Also important to distinguish that the bodies (A7RV, Z7II) have different resolutions, so it's unfair to compare numbers like this.
The Sony 400 has about 15% higher centre image-plane resolution than the Sony 600 wide open, whereas with Nikon the 600 actually measures about 11% higher than the Nikon 400/4.5,
However, those are image-plane LW/PH figures. They don't account for how large the same distant subject appears in the frame. At the same shooting position a 600mm lens gives 1.5× as many pixels across the subject linearly.
Distant subject resolution should be proportional to (LW / PH) * focal_length
So despite its approximately 15% lower image-plane LW/PH, the Sony 600/6.3 would still resolve about 30% more detail across the same distant subject from the same position.
I think it is important to distinguish DCW's image MTF result from how much detail you actually get on a bird at a fixed distance....Show more →
This is really useful.
What I’d also be most interested to see is a comparison of these Imatest results with the 300/2.8 + 2xTC.
So far, I have not been able to find the equivalent results; the only thing I’ve unearthed so far is a PCMag article that gives a figure of 5,700 for the 300/2.8 (without TC), which is presumably for the centre, but I’ve no way of telling whether this is gives a valid, apples-to-apples comparison, it may well not, for all I know.
Is it plausible that a bare 300mm lens would be that much sharper? The test was done with an A7R IV; I suppose the Sony and Nikon results above might have been produced on cameras with different resolutions.
Buckeye2604 wrote:
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 was not the case with the lenses I owned and used. That's one of the reasons I no longer put too much stock in social media reviews; I test gear for myself.
