And again they make a 600mm f6.3, leaving my dream lens of 20+ years untouched: a portable 600mm f5.6
1kg is lighter than necessary anyhow. The only upside on these rumored telelenses is that they are GM lenses, but otherwise i.m.o. they are pretty boring if you don't passionately like miniaturized equipment.
I mean, if I want too shoot wildlife, I will bother to make the effort carrying a wildlife lens, 1,5kg is more than light enough, I had the Nikon 500PF and the tiny size almost annoyed me and the weight was not nearly a concern.
D**n you Sony, for not making a 600mm f5.6GM at 1,5kg if you have the ability. Or even a 400/4GM that decently takes the 1.4TC
For unknown reasons, the OP removed his original post although the trail is still there. Somebody got slapped with an NDA sanctions maybe? Whatever that means, remains to be seen.
Stoffer wrote:
Maybe, but this seems like a direct marketing attack on those Nikon lenses, I guess someone at Sony grew tired of listening to the YouTube influencers mentioning these lenses as a prime reason to buy Nikon.
Hopefully they don't listen to people clamoring for built in TC lenses though.
ChrisMak wrote:
And again they make a 600mm f6.3, leaving my dream lens of 20+ years untouched: a portable 600mm f5.6
1kg is lighter than necessary anyhow. The only upside on these rumored telelenses is that they are GM lenses, but otherwise i.m.o. they are pretty boring if you don't passionately like miniaturized equipment.
I mean, if I want too shoot wildlife, I will bother to make the effort carrying a wildlife lens, 1,5kg is more than light enough, I had the Nikon 500PF and the tiny size almost annoyed me and the weight was not nearly a concern.
D**n you Sony, for not making a 600mm f5.6GM at 1,5kg if you have the ability. Or even a 400/4GM that decently takes the 1.4TC...Show more →
haha yeah, how light is too light, seems 1kg! Is there a big difference between 5.6 and 6.3 though? Curious how this 600 6.3 will take the 1.4x TC, but yeah i would have liked more light to have an option like the 300 with 1.4x for F4. I'm still amazed at the weight of the 300 and 2x TC, 1677 grams feels like nothing, I'm afraid 1kg lens will be blown around in winds and have to be tied down!
AGeoJO wrote:
For unknown reasons, the OP removed his original post although the trail is still there. Somebody got slapped with an NDA sanctions maybe? Whatever that means, remains to be seen.
That's an interesting plot twist.
Posted it a day before he was allowed to, maybe? Based on Sony Rumors' story?
Looks like perfect lenses for those of us that mainly take pictures of our dogs while they are sleeping. I know many of you are put off because Sony didn’t make the lenses 1/2 stop faster, but they study their market and I bet more people prefer lighter and losing that 1/2 stop. Modern sensors, improved stabilization and noise reduction should make these lenses quite useful for all but the most serious BIF photographers.
If this rumor is true, the 600mm f/6.3 would be faster, smaller and lighter than the 400-800mm at 600mm where the 400-800mm is at f/8 already. Add a 1.4X and the 600mm f/6.3 would be 840mm f9. If this lives up to GM standards of sharpness it could be an alternative to the 400-800mm, if you don't need a zoom or the 400mm - 600mm side of the 400-800mm.
Conceptually, they're interesting. I'm pretty happy with my OEM super-ts (original 100-400GM and 300/2.8 + extenders) and I'd be hard-pressed to spend time on making a switch. At this point, the only thing that could get me to spend GM money is if Sony gives us a sub-two kg 500/4 as impressive as the 300.
bwcolor wrote:
Looks like perfect lenses for those of us that mainly take pictures of our dogs while they are sleeping. I know many of you are put off because Sony didn’t make the lenses 1/2 stop faster, but they study their market and I bet more people prefer lighter and losing that 1/2 stop. Modern sensors, improved stabilization and noise reduction should make these lenses quite useful for all but the most serious BIF photographers.
6.3 is fine for normal daylight, not so much in rainforest or other low light, IMO, not necessarily about BIF?
I'm one of those single lens guys, so I really like the 300 because it can be a 420 f4 if needed. That's just me personally i'd like to see f5, still lighter than big f4 but still have decent focal length. To me the difference between 5.6 and 6.3 is negligible, but between f5 and f6.3 is a big more pronounced in dark environments.
F6.3 ain't bad when you have to shoot a group of birds/animals and want more DOF
I often shoot 2 fighting birds or mating or doing food transfer in the air and resort to f8 to keep both birds sharp
So a slower aperture has its own merits depending on the situation
Of course with a faster lens one can always stop down but at the cost of weight and finances
I do lots of travel around the world for birding so don't mind a slower yet lighter lens
I'd never carry the 600mm f4 no matter how good and sharp it is
The best lens is the one you can carry with you
I'd definitely consider the 600mm 6.3 to add to my 300mm + TCs arsenal , esp. coupled with the 1.4TC
Superb,
This is exactly what I need.
I shoot wildlife—specifically birds in flight—in the French Alps.
These lenses are ideal for my type of photography; I used to own the Nikon 500mm PF, which I loved for its lightness, followed by the Z8 with the Nikon 400mm f/4.5 and later the 600mm PF.
I loved those lenses for the same reason as the 500mm PF: sharpness and low weight.
I switched to Sony (using an A1 and an A6700) solely for video tracking capabilities.
Currently, I have an A7R VI and a 300mm f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter; I love what I can do with that setup, but for hiking, if Sony releases these two lenses weighing around 1kg, it will be hard to resist buying them.
Now there is talk of a potential A6900 with a stacked sensor, so my dilemma is choosing between future combinations like the A7R VI with the 600mm f/6.3, or keeping the 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/4.5 for a future A6900 🤔
In any case, this is great news; for mountain wildlife photography, an f/6.3 aperture isn't necessarily an issue, but weight certainly is.
arbitrage wrote:
I’m surprised the weights are the same.
Nikon’s aren’t the same and their 600 is PF which should lower the weight closer to their non-PF 400 but they are still aren’t equal.
400/4.5 (not PF): 1.24kg
600/6.3PF: 1.47kg
But…..SAR did rumor these lenses a few weeks ago and just this morning has a tease that they are announcing these two lenses very soon and they are the lightest out there. I hope he has additional sources and just didn’t see this thread
The weights (if correct) are a huge achievement. Especially the 600/6.3 which I’d assume isn’t PF/DO as Sony has never made one.
I’ll certainly be tempted by both of these. Would probably go for the 600 IF it can outperform the 300GM/2xTC. Shaving more than half a kilo off of the 300/2x would be killer. Of course I’d also be tempted by the 400 as it then can work as 400/4.5 or 600/6.3. But owning the 300GM and the 100-400/4.5GM would start to be too much. I’d probably start to look at selling the 100-400GM. I’m already starting to shift my use away from the new lens and back to the 300GM now that the honeymoon period is over.
...Show more →
"I’m already starting to shift my use away from the new lens and back to the 300GM now that the honeymoon period is over."
Can u please tell is why? I didn't get it yet because of the size. I use 300 with 1.4 90% of time. Don't like 2x mainly because the week stabilization. I assume 100-400 + 1.4 will be much better in this regard.
Jemini wrote:
"I’m already starting to shift my use away from the new lens and back to the 300GM now that the honeymoon period is over."
Can u please tell is why? I didn't get it yet because of the size. I use 300 with 1.4 90% of time. Don't like 2x mainly because the week stabilization. I assume 100-400 + 1.4 will be much better in this regard.
I think mainly because it is smaller and lighter. Which is the main reason I was using the 300GM so often over my 600GM.
I find it more agile to get on and track a BIF because of the size/weight.
I mainly thought the 100-400/4.5 would serve me well in the kayak as I could use the zoom to change between different sized subjects. But I still only had a couple instances where I needed to zoom back. If I’d cut off some wings in those instances with the prime I probably wouldn’t have cared.
As far as stabilization I don’t think you will notice an difference if you are comparing the 300GM/2x vs the 100-400/1.4x. I don’t know for sure if there is any difference in the baseline stabilization of these lenses. If there isn’t then once you are at the same focal length 560/600 it should be about equal. What TC you use to get there shouldn’t make any difference.
I’ve found I can keep a BIF better centred in my frame with the 300 because of the better agility I get from it.
ChrisMak wrote:
And again they make a 600mm f6.3, leaving my dream lens of 20+ years untouched: a portable 600mm f5.6
1kg is lighter than necessary anyhow. The only upside on these rumored telelenses is that they are GM lenses, but otherwise i.m.o. they are pretty boring if you don't passionately like miniaturized equipment.
I mean, if I want too shoot wildlife, I will bother to make the effort carrying a wildlife lens, 1,5kg is more than light enough, I had the Nikon 500PF and the tiny size almost annoyed me and the weight was not nearly a concern.
D**n you Sony, for not making a 600mm f5.6GM at 1,5kg if you have the ability. Or even a 400/4GM that decently takes the 1.4TC...Show more →
If these two lenses end up being true then I think you can officially put the nail in the coffin for your 600/5.6 or 400/4.
You may have to switch brands….oh wait….no brand makes those two lenses
I guess you may just want to buy an RF camera and buy another 400DOII.
But really it is 1/3 of a stop. That is so meaningless these days. I could post denoised shots at 10,000 vs 12,800 ISO and no one would be able to tell which is which. Once you are back down in more common wildlife ISO range like 1600-4000 and are comparing 1/3 stop ISO differences it would be impossible to tell.
Otherwise, just get a 300GM/2xTC. There you will have your 420/4 and 600/5.6. Does the 2xTC sacrifice something? Sure, it does but it starts off with such a high bar of a bare lens (certainly the best bare lens I’ve ever owned) that all the 2xTC does is brings it back down to a very good 600/5.6. AF can keep up with every type of BIF I’ve pointed it at including passerines and swallows. IQ won’t match the bare 600GM but it isn’t too far off.
Whether Sony chooses to make a 1.5kg 600/5.6 or a 1kg 600/6.3 doesn’t really matter to me. But I’d probably only buy the 600/6.3 because the weight would add some advantage over the 300/2x where as the 600/5.6 would just be the same (even if it has some IQ/AF advantage). I mean maybe if it was like bare 300GM IQ and AF then I’d consider it and just use the 300GM at 300/420 but I think I’d prefer the weight savings of the 600/6.3 (which may also end up with IQ/AF advantage over the 300/2x).
