Douglas L wrote:
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.
The only thing that would ever make me spend money on a 600/4 or 400/2.8 lens again would be if they built in a TC.
I'm sure by the time Sony makes one (if ever) they will also be able to lower the weight from what we have now even with the TC elements and mechanism added in.
duncangr wrote:
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.
I enjoy Mark's videos and I've looked at his images captured with the lens. Here's a sample shot from the 200-600, top is straight out of camera -- imported to LR, default 40 for sharpening, exported to jpeg 100. The bottom is how I would process my shot... I would crop it but for the sake of this example, I just left it.
First... everyone has their own baselines when it comes to sharpness, processing, etc. When it comes to sharpness/details... this image is a good example (again, my opinion) of what all my lenses should be able to produce... or better. A "better" example would the the bare 300 F/2.8. I don't have to sharpen those images.
Follow the Flickr link and you can zoom in on the high res version of the shot to see what, at least my copy of the 200-600 is capable of. I'm not saying the new 600 F/6.3 isn't better or there won't be noticeable improvements... I'm pointing out, my lens meets my standards/expectations. I'll likely buy one and give it a try for myself as I really like the size and weight. I have no doubt it's going to be sharp. That being said, I think the 200-600 is a hell of a value for what you get.
Unless I'm missing something, the small image doesn't tell me anything... would love to see the full res version. I could be missing the link to see a large version?
Those appear to be taken at very close to minimum focus distance.
If they were high enough resolution to be able to make a judgement, I think the vast majority of us want to see results at a longer distance to subject.
CPWarner wrote:
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.
The new 100-400 f4.5 paired with the 600mm f6.3 might be the perfect 2 body two lens system. It would be quite a bit lighter than the old 100-400 and the 400-800, but it would still have significant volume in the backpack.
Douglas L wrote:
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.
You probably never owned the setup and are just looking at paper specs? Adding a TC does make the whole setup feel heavier in the real world.
You need to consider torque. Inserting a TC adds physical length between the camera body and heavy front lens and hood. Pushing the weights of the lens and body eve slightly further from you exponentially increases the force on your wrists and shoulders.
The longer focal length magnifies micro shake which forces your body to engage in more intense muscle contraction for stability.
desecrate99 wrote:
You probably never owned the setup and are just looking at paper specs? Adding a TC does make the whole setup feel heavier in the real world.
desecrate99 wrote:
You probably never owned the setup and are just looking at paper specs? Adding a TC does make the whole setup feel heavier in the real world.
You need to consider torque. Inserting a TC adds physical length between the camera body and heavy front lens and hood. Pushing the weights of the lens and body eve slightly further from you exponentially increases the force on your wrists and shoulders.
The longer focal length magnifies micro shake which forces your body to engage in more intense muscle contraction for stability.
But don't you use a long enough A-S foot so the weight is balanced? Wimberley or Kirk or RRS make good feet.
EB-1 wrote:
But don't you use a long enough A-S foot so the weight is balanced?
You still need to stretch your left arm further out, which will make it ware out quite a bit quicker.
It is kind of cool that Minolta previously produced teles at these focal lengths and speeds; the Minolta MD 600/6.3 (only slightly more heavy at 2400g and no AF) and the Minolta AF 400/4.5 (coming in much closer at only 1920g). I wonder if that was intentional or just happenstance.
I put together a page showing some of Mark Galer's 600 f/6.3 images that makes it easier to quickly scan over them to see just how this lens holds up. I hope he doesn't mind !!
It looks to me like this will handily beat the 200-600 - although some testing with subjects a bit further away really needs to be done. The detail seems considerably cleaner than what is possible with the 200-600 but perhaps that's just my imagination.
In particular the one image of the fishing line taken with the 1.4TC and A7R6 looks promising as the very fine spider web with dew droplets looks impressively sharp. As does the staircase - which is just down the road - I should take the 300+2xtc, 400-800 and 200-600 and take the same pictures - although quite how he managed to time it to get sun at 7am in this city beats me!
duncangr wrote:
I put together a page showing some of Mark Galer's 600 f/6.3 images that makes it easier to quickly scan over them to see just how this lens holds up. I hope he doesn't mind !!
It looks to me like this will handily beat the 200-600 - although some testing with subjects a bit further away really needs to be done. The detail seems considerably cleaner than what is possible with the 200-600 but perhaps that's just my imagination.
In particular the one image of the fishing line taken with the 1.4TC and A7R6 looks promising as the very fine spider web with dew droplets looks impressively sharp. As does the staircase - which is just down the road - I should take the 300+2xtc, 400-800 and 200-600 and take the same pictures - although quite how he managed to time it to get sun at 7am in this city beats me!...Show more →
