bcaslis wrote:
So I'm confused. I watched both 400 & 600mm videos from Dustin Abbott and I don't see the 400 & TC vs 600 comparison. Where exactly is this?
In the 400mm video he shows the test chart with the 400 + 1.4x. In the 600mm video he shows the test chart. You need to have both open at the same time or down load the test chart images from his web site.
bcaslis wrote:
So the images you posted are not from a comparison but independently downloaded from different reviews? I think showing them like that is questionable and slightly misleading.
He was reviewing both lenses at the same time as he mentions in his videos. So the test charts were taken at same time. I don't see that as misleading. It is simply extracting data from one source that took the test charts under the same conditions.
Sure they're large but they are never coming close in general, and usually pop out early or morning or dusk. I was getting a lot closer to the big animals in Canada than I do kangaroos in general.
Looks like 600mm f/6.3 is better than 400mm f/4.5 + 1.4x
I wonder how much testing technique plays into this. The test images from Dustin Abbott would lead one to a different conclusion than Tony. Other reviews show higher lines per millimeter on the 400 than 600 base lenses. I am thinking these are pretty close and both work well with the 1.4x. What I would like to see is good quality tests with the Sony 2x.
larsjen wrote:
Tony Northrup's reviews, with teleconverter shots and comparisons.
This is more in line with what I’d expect from a supertele prime. Especially with the theoretical MTF charts that Sony has published for both lenses. Which are extremely good
I was leaning towards passing on the 600mm after seeing the Dustin Abbott video. But now I’m leaning towards getting one again! 😭
Just need to see a 600mm + 1.4x vs. 400-800mm @ 800mm
I will say I think the 400 + 1.4x shot was slightly blurry from motion or missed focus. I don’t know how many shots Tony took. But I think the one he showed was slightly off
What is really interesting is that both Dustin and Tony used the Viltrox 2x. Their results were vastly different. Dustin's images showed very inferior performance with the 2x. Tony's were surprisingly good.
CPWarner wrote:
What is really interesting is that both Dustin and Tony used the Viltrox 2x. Their results were vastly different. Dustin's images showed very inferior performance with the 2x. Tony's were surprisingly good.
True.
After watching all videos and reviews, I think 400 is better. But not by much. Looks like Sony took 400 and made a 600 out of it. If you want 600mm, it's better to get 600mm. If you want 400 or f/4.5 get 400mm.
I just turned off Dustin's video on the 600. Seems like a great guy, but at 13:22 of 23:16 he is testing pincushion distortion and he is shooting at 1/80 of a second naked to achieve iso 100 and 1/40 of a second with 1.4. He's on a tripod. He's also shooting across his yard with concrete and grass (wet concrete) between him and the test chart. There's a table with umbrella and you can see the umbrella moving, so there was wind. No one uses 840mm at 1/40 of a second and expects tack sharp, tripod or not - and in the middle of the day, shooting over wet concrete and grass. At 14:51 he is comparing the 600 and 2-6 and shooting the 600 at 1/125 and the 2-6 at 1/500. Both at f6.3. However, they are also both at ISO 100, so when the 2-6 shot was taken, there were 2 extra stops of light. Unfair to say the 2-6 has more contrast when it has 2 extra stops of light and can shoot at a higher ss. Not a controlled test at all.
robert614 wrote:
This is more in line with what I’d expect from a supertele prime. Especially with the theoretical MTF charts that Sony has published for both lenses. Which are extremely good
I was leaning towards passing on the 600mm after seeing the Dustin Abbott video. But now I’m leaning towards getting one again! 😭
Just need to see a 600mm + 1.4x vs. 400-800mm @ 800mm
I will say I think the 400 + 1.4x shot was slightly blurry from motion or missed focus. I don’t know how many shots Tony took. But I think the one he showed was slightly off
If you want to play the conspiracy theory game, you could claim that Tony got the one good copy of the 600mm and Dustin got the one good copy of the 400mm
I already have the 600mm on pre-order, but I am still hoping to see a good test between the 400mm f4.5 and the 100-400 f4.5 obviously at 400mm and the 600mm f6.3 vs the 300mm GM with a Sony 2X TC.
ps09 wrote:
I just turned off Dustin's video on the 600. Seems like a great guy, but at 13:22 of 23:16 he is testing pincushion distortion and he is shooting at 1/80 of a second naked to achieve iso 100 and 1/40 of a second with 1.4. He's on a tripod. He's also shooting across his yard with concrete and grass (wet concrete) between him and the test chart. There's a table with umbrella and you can see the umbrella moving, so there was wind. No one uses 840mm at 1/40 of a second and expects tack sharp, tripod or not - and in the middle of the day, shooting over wet concrete and grass. At 14:51 he is comparing the 600 and 2-6 and shooting the 600 at 1/125 and the 2-6 at 1/500. Both at f6.3. However, they are also both at ISO 100, so when the 2-6 shot was taken, there were 2 extra stops of light. Unfair to say the 2-6 has more contrast when it has 2 extra stops of light and can shoot at a higher ss. Not a controlled test at all.
I'm not knocking the man. But, his testing of the 600 vs 2-6 leaves a lot to be desired and I do not think any conclusions (good or bad) on the lenses can be drawn based on the conditions they were evaluated under. The mere fact that the 2-6 lighting conditions were 2 stops better than the 600 and allowed a 1/500 ss is a DQ. What other conditions changed? Temp? Wind? Heat haze?
Jack Flesher wrote:
Then how come in my camera if I switch from full frame to APSC mode, the exposure of a full blue sky image remains identical? By your thinking, the exposure for APSC should require an extra stop to equalize, but it doesn't.
Because you did not test it properly. In S35 mode you lose detail, add one stop of noise and lose one stop of DR. M43 loses yet more detail and adds 2 stops of noise and 2 stops of DR. 1" type sensor loses yet more.
aCuria wrote:
Because you did not test it properly. In S35 mode you lose detail, add one stop of noise and lose one stop of DR. M43 loses yet more detail and adds 2 stops of noise and 2 stops of DR. 1" type sensor loses yet more.
You keep talking noise. I am talking correct exposure. Not shadow detail. Not noise. Exposure. Period.
Why do a sharpness test at ISO 100/200 and 1/60 or 125 when most wildlife photography --- the target demographic for these lenses -- is usually done at higher ISOs and faster shutters? With shutters that slow, shake could be a consideration, even with electronic shutter Give me a sample representative of real world usage; otherwise it means little.
Pick your focal length and be happy- These lenses look sick! 