pdog109 wrote:
The future is now old man.
There's some comments on the SAR post that say the 600 6.3 at 2.5m MFD is too good to be true and that Sony put a TC in the lens to achieve that. Honestly i don't care about MFD, birds don't usually let me get that close.
I am sure Sony will have had to play with the optical formula considerably to get a 600mm lens in such a tiny package, a lot will be done by the lens group in the rear, not necessarily producing the best image rendering.
But they have at least (or so it seems) taken the challenge to make a lens like that, and call it GM, so I would be surprised if it turns out mediocre.
Adding a TC is adding a group of 6 (or thereabouts) lens elements at the back of a lens to force a native lens into a different focal length, I cannot see Sony doing that since they designed the 600mm f6.3 from scratch. It's a tiny lens and I don't think you can expect that much optically from a tiny lens, but being brandnew and GM, I still assume it will be special in some ways, and great to carry, and hopefully great to use with good image stabilization.
Definitely interested to see what Sony comes out with. Unless the 400mm f4.5 is about 1/2 the price of the 100-400mm f/4.5, though I have a bit of a hard time seeing many people getting the prime over the zoom. I was actually wondering recently if adapting the Sony 100-400mm f4.5 makes more sense than getting the Nikon 400mm f4.5 at this point, since for $800 more you gain a much more versatile lens. Sure, the zoom will be a bit heavier in the hand, but it makes it much easier to leave a wider zoom, like a 70-200, at home.
arbitrage wrote:
I don’t know about the IQ between the 600/6.3 and 300/2x (I think they will be close and I’d bet a slight edge to the 600). But if the 600 has 4 linear motors I bet the AF will be better than the 300/2x because that is where I feel the 300/2x suffers the most when comparing it to 300/1.4x or 600GM.
Honestly the IQ part is less important for me than the AF performance, the 300 with the 2X IQ is exceptionally good and it's basically glued to my A1II, where I find there is room for improvement is with AF performance with the 2X for fast flying birds such as swallows, Bee-eaters or kingfishers. I've been photographing Bee-eaters this Spring and early summer in Portugal and there is a noticeable AF speed/accuracy difference between the bare lens and the 1.4 or 2 converters, less so with the 1.4. This last week I spent a number of days fotographing the European Kingfishers, a small super fast flier and there is a noticeable difference in AF speed and accuracy between the base lens and the 1.4 and 2x teleconverters. If the 600 f/6.3 can match the AF speed of the 300 then I'm all in on that lens.
@MIRANDA1 agreed. A while ago I did a deep dive into how teleconverters affect autofocus speed and accuracy. It was quite a rabbit hole, and far more complicated than just the loss of speed.
For me the most educational part was that each lens autofocus servo is tuned for the relationship between the focus plane travel distance vs focusing element travel distance. Quoting Canon [1]: "larger image plane changes per focus lens unit travel distance”. My interpretation is that the AF motors are tuned to the given optical formula and introducing a TC changes that. It is an optical+mechanical problem which can't be solved with better firmware or better sensors inside a body. Based on that, I would expect the 600mm f/6.3 to have better AF performance than the 300mm f/2.8 with 2x TC despite the speed disadvantage.
old-gregg wrote:
@MIRANDA1@ agreed. A while ago I did a deep dive into how teleconverters affect autofocus speed and accuracy. It was quite a rabbit hole, and far more complicated than just the loss of speed.
For me the most educational part was that each lens autofocus servo is tuned for the relationship between the focus plane travel distance vs focusing element travel distance. Quoting Canon [1]: "larger image plane changes per focus lens unit travel distance”. My interpretation is that the AF motors are tuned to the given optical formula and introducing a TC changes that. It is an optical+mechanical problem which can't be solved with better firmware or better sensors inside a body. Based on that, I would expect the 600mm f/6.3 to have better AF performance than the 300mm f/2.8 with 2x TC despite the speed disadvantage.
old-gregg wrote:
@MIRANDA1@ agreed. A while ago I did a deep dive into how teleconverters affect autofocus speed and accuracy. It was quite a rabbit hole, and far more complicated than just the loss of speed.
For me the most educational part was that each lens autofocus servo is tuned for the relationship between the focus plane travel distance vs focusing element travel distance. Quoting Canon [1]: "larger image plane changes per focus lens unit travel distance”. My interpretation is that the AF motors are tuned to the given optical formula and introducing a TC changes that. It is an optical+mechanical problem which can't be solved with better firmware or better sensors inside a body. Based on that, I would expect the 600mm f/6.3 to have better AF performance than the 300mm f/2.8 with 2x TC despite the speed disadvantage.
Putting a TC on has no effect on the focus motors - they are linear motors and move just as fast as with no TC. They are dumb and get their move instructions from the camera so any change in performance is the cameras fault. Obviously reducing the light on the sensor will have some impact on the cameras ability to find the focus point.
And yes you can solve it with a better camera (sensor and firmware) - there is a reason the A9iii is what it is and why the A7R6 is in most situations as good as or perhaps better than the A1ii.
I must be a odd man out in this regard. I'll pre order the 400. Even though I love to shoot all wildlife including large mammals, where I live birds are pretty much what I get. For birds 400mm is just starting FL. Currently use 300 with 1.4x most of the time for BIF. If the rumor is true new 400 will save couple of pounds (almost) in weight and couple of 1000s of $ at the cost of a third of a stop of light. A camera lens combo that I can take everywhere.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Definitely interested to see what Sony comes out with. Unless the 400mm f4.5 is about 1/2 the price of the 100-400mm f/4.5, though I have a bit of a hard time seeing many people getting the prime over the zoom. I was actually wondering recently if adapting the Sony 100-400mm f4.5 makes more sense than getting the Nikon 400mm f4.5 at this point, since for $800 more you gain a much more versatile lens. Sure, the zoom will be a bit heavier in the hand, but it makes it much easier to leave a wider zoom, like a 70-200, at home....Show more →
I'm on the fence. I do love my 200-600, but I really like everything I've seen about the 300mm. If these two lenses come out and are absolutely killer, having both would be great. If not, I'm buying the 300mm. But these lenses are going to have to knock it out of the park because the 300mm (used) plus the two TCs ends up being cheaper.
Jemini wrote:
I must be a odd man out in this regard. I'll pre order the 400. Even though I love to shoot all wildlife including large mammals, where I live birds are pretty much what I get. For birds 400mm is just starting FL. Currently use 300 with 1.4x most of the time for BIF. If the rumor is true new 400 will save couple of pounds (almost) in weight and couple of 1000s of $ at the cost of a third of a stop of light. A camera lens combo that I can take everywhere.
600 all the way. Not going to hesitate. Just going to hit buy when preorders go up. Will it replace my 200-600? I don’t know. It’s a heavy lens to go stomping around with. I’ve never quite gotten used to lugging it. On the sidelines of lacrosse it’s valuable for sure but I’m not sure it’s much better than my 100-400 with a 1.4 attached. Since the 100-400 is lighter I often prefer it for the shooting experience. The 600 should be ideal for travel with bird and small animal subjects.
I’m undecided; the 600mm f/6.3 is really tempting, and it would likely perform superbly with my A7Ri
On the other hand, the 400mm f/4.5 might tick more boxes. Thanks to the A7R 6’s APS-C mode and its 120p cropped video mode, it could effectively serve as a 600mm lens, while offering 400mm in full-frame mode when animals are closer; plus, the f/4.5 aperture offers an advantage in challenging lighting conditions.
If Sony releases an APS-C sports camera (like an A6900), the 600mm would be too long for me.
I own the 300mm f/2.8 with a teleconverter1,4 and x2, but I rarely use the TC because autofocus performance suffers; I experience some focus issues in Super 35 mode at 120p, whereas performance is much better without the TC.
It’s fine for stationary subjects that don't move much, but for birds, I prefer shooting stills and video without the TC.
I do a lot of mountain photography, so weight is obviously a key factor for me.
If both new lenses turn out to be excellent, I think I’ll sell my 300mm f/2.8—simply to save weight and to get a native 400mm or 600mm lens.
valmofab wrote:
I’m undecided; the 600mm f/6.3 is really tempting, and it would likely perform superbly with my A7Ri
On the other hand, the 400mm f/4.5 might tick more boxes. Thanks to the A7R 6’s APS-C mode and its 120p cropped video mode, it could effectively serve as a 600mm lens, while offering 400mm in full-frame mode when animals are closer; plus, the f/4.5 aperture offers an advantage in challenging lighting conditions.
<snip>
Isn't the APS-C mode just a crop? By the same thinking, the 600mm can also be an "effective" 900mm lens?
I get that you are saying, that the 400mm can offer two perspective (400mm and 600mm), but with the same pixel density. When in focal length challenged situations,though, the APS-C equivalent "600mm" does not give you more reach. In that case, the 600mm will still give you 50% more reach, holding pixel density constant.
I've never heard anyone say that AF suffers on the 300 with the TC. I wonder if that's model specific.
valmofab wrote:
I’m undecided; the 600mm f/6.3 is really tempting, and it would likely perform superbly with my A7Ri
On the other hand, the 400mm f/4.5 might tick more boxes. Thanks to the A7R 6’s APS-C mode and its 120p cropped video mode, it could effectively serve as a 600mm lens, while offering 400mm in full-frame mode when animals are closer; plus, the f/4.5 aperture offers an advantage in challenging lighting conditions.
If Sony releases an APS-C sports camera (like an A6900), the 600mm would be too long for me.
I own the 300mm f/2.8 with a teleconverter1,4 and x2, but I rarely use the TC because autofocus performance suffers; I experience some focus issues in Super 35 mode at 120p, whereas performance is much better without the TC.
It’s fine for stationary subjects that don't move much, but for birds, I prefer shooting stills and video without the TC.
I do a lot of mountain photography, so weight is obviously a key factor for me.
If both new lenses turn out to be excellent, I think I’ll sell my 300mm f/2.8—simply to save weight and to get a native 400mm or 600mm lens.
The price of the 400mm is also an advantage....Show more →
dfreese wrote:
I've never heard anyone say that AF suffers on the 300 with the TC. I wonder if that's model specific.
The effect is real and due to reduced data quality: less light per pixel (and a bit less sharpness) and a worse aperture to base PDAF on. In practice this will be unnoticeable, unless you track something very demanding. So e.g. in flight swallows, swifts and song birds.
What I'm really looking forward to seeing is the quality of bokeh/rendering since these are GM lenses. I'm sure sharpness will be plenty good wide open, but the rendering is what could make these stand out against something like the 200-600 etc.
dfreese wrote:
I've never heard anyone say that AF suffers on the 300 with the TC. I wonder if that's model specific.
AF certainly suffers with the TCs. The bare lens has probably the fastest AF of any Sony telephoto I've used which therefore helps it still perform well with the TCs. With the 1.4TC you won't notice it much until you really challenge it with some super fast/erratic BIF.
With the 2xTC you start to notice the AF slow more significantly. If you find yourself way off your intended focal plane you can certainly notice it taking longer to drive AF to where you need it.
I also notice a decrease in the keeper rate shooting fast/erratic BIF with the 2x. Also for precapture launch shots of small passerines you notice the lower keeper rate with the 2x.
FWIW, my experience is with the A1II and A9III.
If these new lenses have four linear AF motors then I think they will have better AF than the equivalent focal length from the 300GM+TCs. At least for the 600. The 400 may be so close it won't matter. Similar to the new 100-400/4.5 which IMO at 400mm has AF equivalent to the 300/1.4TC. But the bare 600 compared to the 300/2x should hopefully take the AF up a notch or two.
The autofocus on the 300mm f/2.8 is truly fantastic; it remains very good with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, though the success rate drops a bit—though the 1.4x works well enough for my photography and professional work.
Where the 1.4x gives me trouble is in Super 35 mode at 120fps in low light with busy backgrounds; it sometimes loses the subject, unlike the bare 300mm in the same mode.
The 300mm with the 2x teleconverter performs even worse in Super 35 120fps mode, whereas it works better at 600mm in full-frame 120fps mode.
So, I’ve concluded that the 300mm with a teleconverter in Super 35 crop mode at 120fps on my A7R6 doesn't perform quite as well. My preferred setup is the 300mm in APS-C mode for stills, and Super 35 mode for 120fps video to get that 600mm reach.
Admittedly, if I were certain I’d stick with full-frame, I might go for a 600mm f/6.3. But if Sony releases a compact APS-C camera with a stacked sensor 🙏, I’d prefer the 400mm for its price and versatility; mountain mammals like ibex and marmots are often close by.
It’s true that birds are usually further away, but the best shots often happen when they come close to you—and in those moments, you need speed and the ability to easily track the bird in the viewfinder.
For my style of shooting, the 400mm to 600mm range is perfect 👍.
I hope the bokeh on these lenses lives up to expectations, too.
valmofab wrote:
But if Sony releases a compact APS-C camera with a stacked sensor 🙏, I’d prefer the 400mm for its price and versatility ...
Could happen. But folks have been asking for a stacked APSC option since roughly the A9 mark one came out. That was almost a decade ago. So I would not base any decisions on that hope.
valmofab wrote:
The autofocus on the 300mm f/2.8 is truly fantastic; it remains very good with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, though the success rate drops a bit—though the 1.4x works well enough for my photography and professional work.
Where the 1.4x gives me trouble is in Super 35 mode at 120fps in low light with busy backgrounds; it sometimes loses the subject, unlike the bare 300mm in the same mode.
The 300mm with the 2x teleconverter performs even worse in Super 35 120fps mode, whereas it works better at 600mm in full-frame 120fps mode.
So, I’ve concluded that the 300mm with a teleconverter in Super 35 crop mode at 120fps on my A7R6 doesn't perform quite as well. My preferred setup is the 300mm in APS-C mode for stills, and Super 35 mode for 120fps video to get that 600mm reach.
Admittedly, if I were certain I’d stick with full-frame, I might go for a 600mm f/6.3. But if Sony releases a compact APS-C camera with a stacked sensor 🙏, I’d prefer the 400mm for its price and versatility; mountain mammals like ibex and marmots are often close by.
It’s true that birds are usually further away, but the best shots often happen when they come close to you—and in those moments, you need speed and the ability to easily track the bird in the viewfinder.
For my style of shooting, the 400mm to 600mm range is perfect 👍.
I hope the bokeh on these lenses lives up to expectations, too....Show more →
Why do you care specifically whether the sensor is stacked or not? Sony’s slide claims Stacked technology can improve either noise, readout speed, power consumption, resolution or dynamic range, but it seems not all the parameters can be improved at once.
Canon has fast readout speed sensors without using stacking, so it’s clear that stacked sensors is not the only way to achieve a desired outcome
If a stacked APSC costs at much as an A1ii and weighs as much would it still be interesting?
After all the stacked xh2s is 660g, it’s not particularly lightweight (A7V is 695g)
Correlation isn't causation. Building a bulky camera around a stacked sensor to entice the "professional means big and bulky" audience isn't the sensor's problem. The sensor doesn't affect a body's size.
aCuria wrote:
Why do you care specifically whether the sensor is stacked or not? Sony’s slide claims Stacked technology can improve either noise, readout speed, power consumption, resolution or dynamic range, but it seems not all the parameters can be improved at once.
Canon has fast readout speed sensors without using stacking, so it’s clear that stacked sensors is not the only way to achieve a desired outcome
If a stacked APSC costs at much as an A1ii and weighs as much would it still be interesting?
After all the stacked xh2s is 660g, it’s not particularly lightweight (A7V is 695g)
