Jemini wrote:
...IMO, 200-600 is around 560 in normal shooting distance...
I fully agree. I tested it several times against different lenses and it was always quite obvious that its not 600mm in regular shooting distance.
Glad that I sold my very good copy a few weeks ago and now waiting for my pre-ordered 600 f6.3.
Fboss wroteI could keep the 300 and both TCs. The main thing that makes me consider the new 600mm is the weight. I know I wouldn't get better pictures, and it wouldn't really help with carrying it in a bag since the 2 lenses are exactly the same length. (well the 300 + TC is a bit longer, but it doesn't make a difference in my bag)
I feel the same way and I have the same issue, what do with my 300 2.8 when I get the 600 6.3 (preordered it).
My logic for getting the 600 6.3 is that I shoot the 300 with 2x TC the vast majority of the time anyway so using a 600mm lens without having to use a TC is appealing to me. The 300 with 2x TC is still great though, I see people say the AF is not as good but I'm able to get swallows in flight so it works well enough for me. It remains to be seen if the 600 6.3 will be better than the 300+2x TC(no one that has the new lenses also has 300 2.8 it seems?) but I think it will be. And can also use the 600 to get to 840 which you can't do with the 300. If i kept the 300 it would mostly go unused anyway, so I feel like I would have to sell it and lose money. I lost money selling the 600f4 when I switched to 300 2.8 so just gotta get used to it lol.
It's true. Most patent application itself show something like 595 etc . We are saying 200-600 at 600 is way below the prime (which can be less than 600). Almost all consumer zooms have this issue. IMHO, 200-600 has it little more than many other zooms. 70-350 is one have very little breathing. At MFD, it's not too far from 100-400/4.5-5.6. Hard to believe. But true.
dclark wrote:
A well designed 600mm lens will be shorter than 600mm when focused at any distance shorter than infinity.
Here are a couple of links to FM threads with some data and discussion: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1708038/ https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1847274/
These threads are contaminated with some misinformation. As per usual, it's your job to sort it out.
Jemini wrote:
It's true. Most patent application itself show something like 595 etc . We are saying 200-600 at 600 is way below the prime (which can be less than 600). Almost all consumer zooms have this issue. IMHO, 200-600 has it little more than many other zooms. 70-350 is one have very little breathing. At MFD, it's not too far from 100-400/4.5-5.6. Hard to believe. But true.
Jemini wrote:
Sorry, you're right. Will do it in the evening. Anyway I didn't disagree with you..
Don’t feel bad. I doubt if anyone has carefully read and considered every post in this almost-30 page thread before replying, perhaps not even the person who called you out? That’s approaching 600 messages! ;-)
shadow9d9 wrote:
I will keep the 300 while getting the new 600. The 300 was absolutely perfect for safari, with the 1.4. And it is just a fun and beautiful lens.
Is it? I’d think there are situations on a safari changing focal lengths quickly is preferable?
Jemini wrote:
This is a comparison of 70-350 at 350 crop mode (525mm) and 200-600 at 600mm from same distance. Obviously 70-350 file is smaller. I just resized to same size. I guess the distance was around 50 feet (15-20 meters) which is a normal shooting distance for birds and small animals.
IMO, 200-600 is around 560 in normal shooting distance.
(PS : I think the top one is 70-350, I don't remember. I don't have original files)
Those weights are pretty impressive if the numbers are accurate. They’re even lighter than Nikon’s excellent 400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/6.3. If these actually make it to market at those weights, I think they’ll be a great option for anyone looking for a smaller, lighter setup, especially paired with Sony bodies, which are already noticeably more compact than the Z8/Z9.
I don't think there have been any Sony lenses released with any significant weight differences from their pre release specs.
The insignificant differences include lighter weight than Sony states, even after release.
TDP (The Digital Picture) puts lenses on scales and provides lens, foot and good weights.
Hood and foot weights are becoming much more significant over the last few years.
stephenjohnsonn wrote:
Those weights are pretty impressive if the numbers are accurate. They’re even lighter than Nikon’s excellent 400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/6.3. If these actually make it to market at those weights, I think they’ll be a great option for anyone looking for a smaller, lighter setup, especially paired with Sony bodies, which are already noticeably more compact than the Z8/Z9.
dfreese wrote:
Guys. There are SO many 200-600 for sale right now all over FB Marketplace. I think these lenses will be popular.
I will not sell my 200-600 just because there is a 600/6.3, but I might add it. They are different lenses for different purposes. There are good reasons to own the 600/4, 600/6.3 AND 200-600. You will need some other lens like a 100-400/100-500 if not the 200-600 when the subjects are larger or move closer.
If the 400/4.5 and 600/6.3 are quite good, which is still in question, I could see people buying one instead of 300/2.8 and 1.4x/2x.
Another comparison done at near to MFD.
I do shoot at or near MFD, but far more interested in results at a longer distance.
Recently I have been shooting a lot at 50-75 metres.
Eagles nesting and in flight.
Both 600 f4,with and without 1.4TC and 300 2.8 with 2xTC.
All three combinations are great near MFD and long distance and everywhere in between.
Looking forward to a comparison at longer distance.
Those examples look too close to matter. Im more curious about AF performance and consistency between the 300+ 2x and the 600 6.3. Hope more information comes out soon.
. We are saying 200-600 at 600 is way below the prime (which can be less than 600). Almost all consumer zooms have this issue. IMHO, 200-600 has it little more than many other zooms. 70-350 is one have very little breathing. At MFD, it's not too far from 100-400/4.5-5.6. Hard to believe. But true. 