If what SAR posted is true then I wonder if Sony pushed the release date or if it was always later and the leakers/people who get the inside info got it wrong. I ask this because if you include Sigma there were 5 lenses to be released all at once. The companies clearly rely on 3rd party reviews to create the buzz/news and expecting everyone to do a "good" job on all 5 lens reviews at once might be too much of a stretch. Pretty easy for them to just stagger the NDA release dates, especially if they are not ready to ship on the day of the release.
Shows that there are other ways to save space and weight that Sony might have developed further
ChrisMak wrote:
I'm not sure if there is any realistic scenario where Sony managed to make a 600mm f6.3 below 1kg when Nikon needed a PF element to get the weight down to 1390gr.
For now, I am betting that the whole 400/600mm rumor was indeed a scam.
This is a tough call for me. I have the 300 and 600f4. I find myself only using the 600GM when I need 840. Despite what some say, the 300 + 2x is really really good. I had the 2-6 and 4-8. Sold the 2-6 when I got the 300 (due to the unexpected great IQ with the 2x). Got the 4-8 on day one, hoped I'd like it, but the weight was so close to the 600gm with tc that I sold the 4-8. The 600 6.3 intrigues me for kayak use due to its weight. Personally, I doubt the 600 6.4 IQ will be any better than the 300+2x. I will hold out to see how it performs with the 1.4 before considering it. I keep looking for a reason to drop the 600f4 but I keep falling back on that lens. I kayak with it handheld or with Sirui P326 monopod all the time.
ChrisMak wrote:
I'm not sure if there is any realistic scenario where Sony managed to make a 600mm f6.3 below 1kg when Nikon needed a PF element to get the weight down to 1390gr.
For now, I am betting that the whole 400/600mm rumor was indeed a scam.
Probably uses multiple PF elements to get the weight down.
ps09 wrote:
This is a tough call for me. I have the 300 and 600f4. I find myself only using the 600GM when I need 840. Despite what some say, the 300 + 2x is really really good. I had the 2-6 and 4-8. Sold the 2-6 when I got the 300 (due to the unexpected great IQ with the 2x). Got the 4-8 on day one, hoped I'd like it, but the weight was so close to the 600gm with tc that I sold the 4-8. The 600 6.3 intrigues me for kayak use due to its weight. Personally, I doubt the 600 6.4 IQ will be any better than the 300+2x. I will hold out to see how it performs with the 1.4 before considering it. I keep looking for a reason to drop the 600f4 but I keep falling back on that lens. I kayak with it handheld or with Sirui P326 monopod all the time. ...Show more →
When the 300 first came out conventional wisdom said that it would not be good with the 2x at all but it defied that and is very good with the 2x TC indeed. I think the 600 6.3 almost has to be better than the 300+2x TC since its not shooting through a big chonk of glass that is the 2x? Its also supposedly a GM lens too. But then again i don't know jack.
It was a tough call for me too between 300 and 600f4, I could have kept both but that didn't make sense to me so I sold 600f4 since I got tired of carrying it. I wanted to be out in nature more vs taking the absolute best pics, but yeah I do miss 840mm sometimes. But it takes the best dam pictures and doesn't compromise anything!
aCuria wrote:
Probably uses multiple PF elements to get the weight down.
My 2x is pretty much glued on my 300gm, and the lens is glued to an A1ii. However, this year at my lake, the male loon was extremely protective of mama and the babies, so I found myself shooting the 600+1.4 almost exclusively in order to minimize my impact on their behaviors like feeding and preening. Unless it is dark, I try to shoot loons at f/8-f/10 to get depth of field. The low perspective turns the background to cream even at f10. I also give extra space from my subject to get depth of field. The new lens being an 840 f9 with 1.4 tc would have no bearing on my decision. It really comes down to the IQ with the 1.4. The thought of cutting the weight of the 600gm plus 1.4 in half (and smaller footprint) for only 1 1/3 stops of light/ss is very attractive to me. But, the new 600 + 1.4 has to have at least the IQ of the 300 + 2x or I will pass and continue juggling the big dog when I need 840 and using the 300 + 2x when I don't.
ps09 wrote:
This is a tough call for me. I have the 300 and 600f4. I find myself only using the 600GM when I need 840. Despite what some say, the 300 + 2x is really really good. I had the 2-6 and 4-8. Sold the 2-6 when I got the 300 (due to the unexpected great IQ with the 2x). Got the 4-8 on day one, hoped I'd like it, but the weight was so close to the 600gm with tc that I sold the 4-8. The 600 6.3 intrigues me for kayak use due to its weight. Personally, I doubt the 600 6.4 IQ will be any better than the 300+2x. I will hold out to see how it performs with the 1.4 before considering it. I keep looking for a reason to drop the 600f4 but I keep falling back on that lens. I kayak with it handheld or with Sirui P326 monopod all the time. ...Show more →
Same position as me.
Had the 600GM and 300GM. Only used the 600 with 1.4x for 840mm. Also shoot a ton of loons.
300GM + 600 6.3 + 1.4x will be the dream setup for me.
Being at 800mm at 6.3 would be better, such as the 800PF, but then it comes with increased size, weight, length, cost, etc.
They may be real after all, I am not good at judging whether the posted image has any credibility, but SAR is convinced the pair of 400mm and 600mm lenses will be announced soon:
Had the 600GM and 300GM. Only used the 600 with 1.4x for 840mm. Also shoot a ton of loons.
300GM + 600 6.3 + 1.4x will be the dream setup for me.
Being at 800mm at 6.3 would be better, such as the 800PF, but then it comes with increased size, weight, length, cost, etc.
Do you think the 600/6.3 at 840/9 will have adequate IQ at 50+ MP?
I would hope that the bare lens would be a bit better than ther 300/2.8 +2x, epseically towards the edges and corners.
If they are GM lenses, they will almost certainly be sharper than the 300 with the 2x attached. I can’t imagine Sony releasing a GM prime lens that isn’t super sharp. My guess is the bare 600/6.3 will be visibly sharper than the 300 2x combo. Adding a 1.4x will probably give the same sharpness as the 300 with 2x. If true, it sounds like a perfect lens for me.
I'm trying to imagine a usage case where I would look at the corners at 600mm or 840mm? What could I possibly be shooting that is a flat field with that focal length? The loss of depth of field at 600mm is immediate and unless something is exactly at the same plane, it will appear OOF.
All I can say is there is a bit of 300/2x bashing in this thread and I wonder what the expectations are? I have shot tens of thousands of images with the 600gm and 300/2x and the 300 2/x isn't very far behind the 600gm. Other than the loss of light, I'd venture that my combo is 95% of the 600gm. Enough that I quit using it for 600mm.
At 600mm, 100' and f5.6, focusing at 100' exactly will render 99' to 101' in critical focus. At 30'. it changes to 29'11" to 30'2". That's 3" total folks. At 50" and 5.6/600mm, 49'8" is in focus back to 50'. So, if a loon is looking dead at me and I focus on a loon eye 50' away, part of the beak will be in focus, but nothing behind the eye. I think people need to understand the physics of a lens' capabilities before shooting. It will help the success rate. This is why I often shoot loons at f/11 if light permits. At 50', 600mm and f/11, I get 49'4" to 51' in focus if focused at 50'. More than enough . Check out this website and just use Nikon 800 for the camera since it is a full frame
EB-1 wrote:
Do you think the 600/6.3 at 840/9 will have adequate IQ at 50+ MP?
I would hope that the bare lens would be a bit better than ther 300/2.8 +2x, epseically towards the edges and corners.
EBH
I expect it will be far more than adequate.
I think the IQ difference between the new 600 6.3 + 1.4x and the 600GM + 1.4x will be negligible all things considered, if the 300GM is anything to base expectations on.
I don't think the 600 6.3 will be better than the 300GM + 2x, and I still think the 600 6.3 + 1.4x will be great.
nmerc_photos wrote:
I expect it will be far more than adequate.
I think the IQ difference between the new 600 6.3 + 1.4x and the 600GM + 1.4x will be negligible all things considered, if the 300GM is anything to base expectations on.
I don't think the 600 6.3 will be better than the 300GM + 2x, and I still think the 600 6.3 + 1.4x will be great.
Why would the new lens without a TC be worse than an f/2.8 with a 2x TC? Is 1/3 of a stop so much?
EB-1 wrote:
Why would the new lens without a TC be worse than an f/2.8 with a 2x TC? Is 1/3 of a stop so much?
EBH
I just don't expect a $3800 lens to best a $7000 lens + 2x.
The 300GM is pretty much the sharpest lens ever created, which handles TC's better than any other lens.
Less to do with the 1/3 of a stop, and more to do with the 600 6.3 construction. In order for it to be smaller, cheaper, shorter, and lighter than the competition - they've got to be using some type of DO / PF construction, right? Which would automatically make it a lesser quality than a "normal" lens?
I have not used a 300/2.8 is decades, so I have not the experience. I don't do sports or fashion or whatver they are used for pros. Did they build the lens around the TCs?
I'm not convinced that DO/PF is so valuable anymore for weight, and I don't like the weird borkahs sometimes created. But 1kg will be flimsy and have some compromises, probably not even the marketed aperture and high light falloff.
There is an exponential increase in cost for high grade lenses based on diameter. 107mm does not seem a lot larger than 95 mm, but most all lenses over 100mm historically are rather pricey. Obviously it is not just the front element.
