"The difference is obvious. Both 400 and 600 are superior to 200-600."
You would hope so the 200-600 was released in 2019. I don't think people are saying the 200-600 is a better lens. I stated it's no slouch and anticipated these lenses to be better, again, you would hope so since it's been 8-9 years when you consider the dev time to create and test the lens.
What Sony has done here with the size, weight, and I'm sure optics of these two lenses... pretty amazing.
Jemini wrote:
The difference is obvious. Both 400 and 600 are superior to 200-600. Difference between 600mm and 200-600 is more visible.
Not sure if has one of those better copies of 200-600.
I'm not surprised that the new 600 beats the old zoom. But that is worse than an average copy of the zoom looks.
Here’s another question as I try to choose between the two lenses for my needs. How do the 600 at ff and 400 at the apsc portion of the sensor compare? On the A7R6, apsc crop is still 42mp, which remains pretty healthy resolution.
My experience tells me for birds I’d definitely want the 600 with the option to go to apsc/900. I’d set one of the lens buttons to switch the cam to apsc mode for that reason. But for wildlife, I think 400/600 is more practical, then I could add the 1.4x for birds and effectively get a two-fer with 560/840.
I guess the same argument could be made for the 600, and I can see cropping for birds to get effective 900/6.3, but don’t see myself adding the 1.4x for the f9 840mm or 1260mm often enough to outweigh having the 400mm option at the other end, especially with its faster aperture.
I know this is not essential, but the form factor of the 400mm looks better (better balanced). The 600mm looks like it has a TC wielded to the back of it (which I also know is not the case).
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.
In my post, I said I owned the Nikon 600 f4 TC. I also owned the Nikon 800mm PF, while I owned the Nikon gear, I also owned the Sony 600 GM, Probably not many people owned the Nikon 600 f4 TC AND the Sony 600 GM at the same time. I love the built-in TC convenience but was not a fan of Nikon bodies (both Z9 and Z8). I sold the Nikon stuff after few months of owning them. I know some folks don't like built-in TC but how much weight does the built-in TC add to the heavy lens? Maybe another 5%? Can you really say you can feel the 5% extra weight? For A lot of people, the convenience of a built-in TC outweighs the small increase in size and weight.
Jemini wrote:
"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
750/8 effective?
Sony already makes this, it’s called the 400-800.
No point adding internal TC to a zoom, just make the zoom range longer.
howard wrote:
I know this is not essential, but the form factor of the 400mm looks better (better balanced). The 600mm looks like it has a TC wielded to the back of it (which I also know is not the case).
You cannot tell a difference in handling. At least I could not. Those 2cm make no difference at this weight. These lesnes weight less than 70-200 2.8 mk II.
arbitrage wrote:
The extra stop of light from the 400 vs a stop higher ISO from the 600 will only be better if you are close enough to not have to crop the 400 image down to the 600s FOV. If the ideal focal length for your given subject is 600 or longer then the 400 is never better IQ.
Buy the 600.
Bingo. People should also realise the 600 and 400 have the same ight gathering abilities with ~ 89mm apertures. If you are FL limited the 400mm cropped to 600mm loses all the advantages of the faster aperture.
There's no correct answer for which is best, it's highly circumstantial. I use a 600mm a lot more than I use a 400mm, but I live in Australia, we don't have large mammals and most of them are nocturnal anyway. So I usually only shoot birds and a lot of wading birds. It's not often I'm not FL limited even with 600mm unless it's the big waders like egrets and herons. My Nikon 800mm has helped me a lot in that regard. I would love to see Sony offer a sub 2kg 800 f/6.3 down the track.
For me 100-400 f/4.5 + 600 f/6.3 combo would be ideal. I would prefer the Sony 100-400 f/4.5 to my Nikon 400 f/4.5 because it's a lot more versatile lens when I'm not birding and also better in tighter quarters shooting some smaller birds with much superior close focus.
the 200-600 was released in 2019. I don't think people are saying the 200-600 is a better lens. I stated it's no slouch and anticipated these lenses to be better, again, you would hope so since it's been 8-9 years when you consider the dev time to create and test the lens.