I agree, they look fine to me. The OOF areas are clearly less rough around the edges, and the colors look more natural.
On top of that, the two 200-600G lenses that I owned had to be stopped down to f7.1 to clean up the contrast and remove a slight softening. When you're already at a very dim aperture, that is no fun. The 600/6.3 GM is as good as it will get wide open.
If you don't need the shorter focal lengths that the 200-600G will give you, then the 600/6.3 GM is a much, much better lens in every regard, size, weight, auto focus, image quality, you name it. Sony's GM moniker does mean something.
It's not a lens for early mornings or dreary winter days, but in good light daytime, I am sure it will be a great 600mm option.
For me, this announcement means that I can finally put the thought of getting a Nikon Z8 for the 600PF as a portbale alternative to the A1+600/4GM to bed.
I also have a bit of too-good-to-be-true skepticism of this 600/6.3 versus my 600PF...
That said the 400/4.5 looks awesome and hopefully much better than the slightly disappointing Nikon. I'm considering switching systems for it plus the smaller Sony bodies.
My biggest question would be whether to switch to the Cii or 6700. With the Cii, realistically, the 1.4TC or crop button would be used a lot and sometimes together. With the 6700 the bare lens should be enough most of the time, but you'd never get the "real" 400/4.5. Tough decision...
Interesting conversations going on in this thread, one thing which has me curious, did some of you buy bad copies of the 200-600? I know my first copy was terrible, I sent it back, and the current lens is very sharp wide open. Some of the comments about how the new 600 looks to produce much better images than the 200-600 had me scratching my head. Yes, it's lighter, smaller, better AF I would assume, but how much sharper do you need/can it it be? I'm not saying I wouldn't buy one or both, the new 400/600 have me thinking about my own kit and where I could add them and what I could eliminate. I think the weight and size of the lenses alone are huge selling points. How much sharper compared to the lenses I own in this range, I'm not fully sold on... but I haven't shot them myself to compare.
Not trying to derail the thread or anything, the 200-600 comments caught my eye.
I'm quickly coming to this conclusion. People keep chasing sharpness and we are already pretty darn close to amazing. For me, it would come down to weight and AF performance. I think maneuvering a 2.2 pound lens sounds like a dream. If it picks up subjects and keeps them in flight, that matters more than anything to me. I really want to try it.
hatch1921 wrote:
Interesting conversations going on in this thread, one thing which has me curious, did some of you buy bad copies of the 200-600? I know my first copy was terrible, I sent it back, and the current lens is very sharp wide open. Some of the comments about how the new 600 looks to produce much better images than the 200-600 had me scratching my head. Yes, it's lighter, smaller, better AF I would assume, but how much sharper do you need/can it it be? I'm not saying I wouldn't buy one or both, the new 400/600 have me thinking about my own kit and where I could add them and what I could eliminate. I think the weight and size of the lenses alone are huge selling points. How much sharper compared to the lenses I own in this range, I'm not fully sold on... but I haven't shot them myself to compare.
Not trying to derail the thread or anything, the 200-600 comments caught my eye.
dfreese wrote:
I'm quickly coming to this conclusion. People keep chasing sharpness and we are already pretty darn close to amazing. For me, it would come down to weight and AF performance. I think maneuvering a 2.2 pound lens sounds like a dream. If it picks up subjects and keeps them in flight, that matters more than anything to me. I really want to try it.
The problem with many of the slow lenses is that even if MTF is adequate by itself with a TC it is beyond diffraction. I would be shocked if the 600/6.3 performed well with the 1.4x compared to the 600/4 with a 1.4x.
I understand many are not going to spend the money, but I'd rather Sony redesigns the 600/4 to be lighter and throw in a 1.4x like Nikon has.
hatch1921 wrote:
Interesting conversations going on in this thread, one thing which has me curious, did some of you buy bad copies of the 200-600? I know my first copy was terrible, I sent it back, and the current lens is very sharp wide open. Some of the comments about how the new 600 looks to produce much better images than the 200-600 had me scratching my head. Yes, it's lighter, smaller, better AF I would assume, but how much sharper do you need/can it it be? I'm not saying I wouldn't buy one or both, the new 400/600 have me thinking about my own kit and where I could add them and what I could eliminate. I think the weight and size of the lenses alone are huge selling points. How much sharper compared to the lenses I own in this range, I'm not fully sold on... but I haven't shot them myself to compare.
Not trying to derail the thread or anything, the 200-600 comments caught my eye.
My 200-600 is optically very good, but the tripod collar has become quite rough and hard to rotate.
I heard so many bad things about that lens model I dare not mess with my "good copy."
The AF of my earlier one was wonky with the a7RIV, but that may have been the camera. I gave up on Sony at that point, but rejoined with the a7rV and a newer copy of the lens.
I wish Sony would make a higher grade 200-600/6.3 with an internal 1.25x, so 750/8 effective.
dfreese wrote:
I'm quickly coming to this conclusion. People keep chasing sharpness and we are already pretty darn close to amazing. For me, it would come down to weight and AF performance. I think maneuvering a 2.2 pound lens sounds like a dream. If it picks up subjects and keeps them in flight, that matters more than anything to me. I really want to try it.
I'm agree, the weight/size/ and of course the AF performance is a big, big seller. Again, it has me scratching my head to justify the pruchase I don't need either lens but they sure are tempting.
hatch1921 wrote:
Interesting conversations going on in this thread, one thing which has me curious, did some of you buy bad copies of the 200-600? I know my first copy was terrible, I sent it back, and the current lens is very sharp wide open. Some of the comments about how the new 600 looks to produce much better images than the 200-600 had me scratching my head. Yes, it's lighter, smaller, better AF I would assume, but how much sharper do you need/can it it be? I'm not saying I wouldn't buy one or both, the new 400/600 have me thinking about my own kit and where I could add them and what I could eliminate. I think the weight and size of the lenses alone are huge selling points. How much sharper compared to the lenses I own in this range, I'm not fully sold on... but I haven't shot them myself to compare.
Not trying to derail the thread or anything, the 200-600 comments caught my eye.
Agree. My first 200-600 was faulty/ useless and was exchanged within 30 days. The second one was felt to be fair with lower resolution cameras ( a9 series), but with the a1/a1ii shows a low keeper rate ( sharpness and slow AF) that cannot be ignored. Maybe it’s my “ bad luck”.
As far as the new 600mm, I expect fair performance, hopefully better regarding AF speed compared to the 300/2.8 with 2x TC. I’ll compare it - within my use case- to the 300 and 600 mm primes( 2.8/4.0), expecting less but fair performance and looking fw to the weight/ size reduction.
It would be of interest to me to have a lighter and wider zoom in the 600mm range for Sony. Right now I also use Nikon as the lens choices for quality ( sharpness and AF speed), zoom/ prime options, weight have been better so far for me. Nevertheless, I like the a1/a1ii and hoping Sony will not disappoint with the new primes..
EB-1 wrote:
My 200-600 is optically very good, but the tripod collar has become quite rough and hard to rotate.
I heard so many bad things about that lens model I dare not mess with my "good copy."
The AF of my earlier one was wonky with the a7RIV, but that may have been the camera. I gave up on Sony at that point, but rejoined with the a7rV and a newer copy of the lens.
I wish Sony would make a higher grade 200-600/6.3 with an internal 1.25x, so 750/8 effective.
EBH
I'm sort of in the same boat so to speak, If I ever sell my copy the new owner is getting a gem of a lens. As mentioned, the first copy was utter trash, something was very wrong with the lens. An internal 1.25x tc would be very interesting. I just starting shooting with the 300+TCs and then these two were released... I'm looking forward to more examples from the pair. I hope Steve Perry does a review soon, he's one of the few I trust when it comes to lens performance/recommendations.
umut_h_toprak wrote:
For me the more interesting question is the performance at 800/840mm for
600 6.3 + 1.4x
200-600 +1.4x
400-800
That seems to be the fairer comparison.
I'm interested in this comparison as well. I've never been a fan of the 200-600 + 1.4x. The 400-800 has been a ton of fun but we all know the best images come at high noon with the sun full blast to keep the ISO in moderate ranges lol. It's my "sun" lens for sure. I've taken shots in low light as well with it... but... it eats the light.
I hope the new 600 performs well with a 1.4x on it. I'd be tempted to sell my 200-600 and possibly the 400-800. I'd keep the 300 with the TCs, which is another comparison I'd like to see. The new 400 vs the 300 w/1.4x on it. That's going to be a hard one to beat (not price wise, weight, etc) but how close they will be overall image wise.
It's great time to have all these choices... no complaints!
EB-1 wrote:
My 200-600 is optically very good, but the tripod collar has become quite rough and hard to rotate.
I heard so many bad things about that lens model I dare not mess with my "good copy."
The AF of my earlier one was wonky with the a7RIV, but that may have been the camera. I gave up on Sony at that point, but rejoined with the a7rV and a newer copy of the lens.
I wish Sony would make a higher grade 200-600/6.3 with an internal 1.25x, so 750/8 effective.
EBH
"I wish Sony would make a higher grade 200-600/6.3 with an internal 1.25x, so 750/8 effective. "
I'd pre-order one immediately. Actually even the 100-400/4.5 with internal TC would be fantastic. Since Sony never showed an internal TC, I don't much hope. I think Nikon might do it faster since they care about serious amateurs more and they already have lenses with internal TC. Remember they created these mid level lenses 3-4 years ago
shadow9d9 wrote:
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.
I get the light and small aspect, but a fixed focal length has limits. It works great right up until an animal approaches too close and you need less than 400mm. I was in a blind photographing elk recently and one approached pretty close. I had to zoom out my 100-400mm f/4.5 to below 200mm to get the framing I wanted. With either of these lenses I would have been out of luck, or swapping to a 70-200mm. Swapping out TC's can cause one to miss a shot. I know, as that is what got me to sell my 300mm f/2.8.
The weight of the 100-400mm f/4.5 is not a big deal to me, but everyone has an opinion on that. The good thing is that there are options for what matters to different people.
The primary use case for one of these lenses to me is if I needed to get one long lens in a bag which has to meet the most restrictive carry on restrictions for travel. I might pair a 400mm with a 70-200mm f/4 Gii and 20-70mm f/4 G. But if I am heading for wildlife photography specifically and not landscape, I would take my 100-400mm in my Gura Gear backpack with no problems.
" I know, as that is what got me to sell my 300mm f/2.8."
This is likely the direction I'm headed, I really don't like swapping out the teleconverters even if the 300 is an amazing lens. Looking over my image stats from the past years, I live at the long end of the lenses but there are number of shots where having a zoom saved me. Nice to hear you are enjoying the new 100-400 f/4.5 any thoughts on how it performs with a 1.4x on it, assuming you use teleconverters?
hatch1921 wrote:
" I know, as that is what got me to sell my 300mm f/2.8."
This is likely the direction I'm headed, I really don't like swapping out the teleconverters even if the 300 is an amazing lens. Looking over my image stats from the past years, I live at the long end of the lenses but there are number of shots where having a zoom saved me. Nice to hear you are enjoying the new 100-400 f/4.5 any thoughts on how it performs with a 1.4x on it, assuming you use teleconverters?
Hatch
The 100-400mm f/4.5 with 1.4x works great and I used that combo a couple times. There are multiple posts with that combo on the photo thread for that lens. Fine detail is still there and f6.3 is not too extreme for ISO or diffraction causing softening. With the 2x and good light, I can get decent images, but one starts to run into some limits at F9 and my Sony 2X seems to degrade image quality disproportionately to the 1.4x. For that reason, I will rarely use the 2x.
EB-1 wrote:
but I'd rather Sony redesigns the 600/4 to be lighter and throw in a 1.4x like Nikon has.
How can something be lighter, but also have an added 1.4x TC built in it?
When i had the 600f4 i definitely noticed the weight difference between the 600f4 and 600f4 + 1.4x TC.
I carried the 600f4 for two weeks in Costa Rica, never used the 1.4x TC there and I appreciated it being lighter and not having a built in TC i wouldn't use in that scenario.
pdog109 wrote:
How can something be lighter, but also have an added 1.4x TC built in it?
When i had the 600f4 i definitely noticed the weight difference between the 600f4 and 600f4 + 1.4x TC.
I carried the 600f4 for two weeks in Costa Rica, never used the 1.4x TC there and I appreciated it being lighter and not having a built in TC i wouldn't use in that scenario.
The 1.4 tc weighs like 5 ounces — I don’t notice it at all.
hatch1921 wrote:
I'm agree, the weight/size/ and of course the AF performance is a big, big seller. Again, it has me scratching my head to justify the pruchase ...
I used to spend time playing the justification game. Then I gave up.
The Sony 1.4 TC is 169 grams in weight, and pretty thin. Adding 160ish gram to a 3000+ grams 600 f4 is nothing in the grand scheme of things. I bet most people will happily trade the super convenience and weather seal built-in TC for the minimal additional size and weight. How much will Sony charge for such feature is another story. The Nikon 600f4 TC is $2000 more than Sony's 600GM. I love the built-in TC of the Nikon when I owned IT. i guess we are all different in what we like to have in our toys.
hatch1921 wrote:
Interesting conversations going on in this thread, one thing which has me curious, did some of you buy bad copies of the 200-600? I know my first copy was terrible, I sent it back, and the current lens is very sharp wide open. Some of the comments about how the new 600 looks to produce much better images than the 200-600 had me scratching my head. Yes, it's lighter, smaller, better AF I would assume, but how much sharper do you need/can it it be? I'm not saying I wouldn't buy one or both, the new 400/600 have me thinking about my own kit and where I could add them and what I could eliminate. I think the weight and size of the lenses alone are huge selling points. How much sharper compared to the lenses I own in this range, I'm not fully sold on... but I haven't shot them myself to compare.
Not trying to derail the thread or anything, the 200-600 comments caught my eye.
Have a look at Mark Galers images in instagram - download the high resolution versions and tell me your 200-600 is that good. My copy is very sharp even with a TC on but I don't think it can produce quite the same detail/contrast as is evident on Marks images - or maybe he is just better at photoshop.
The 1.4 tc weighs like 5 ounces — I don’t notice it at all.