I wonder if something is off with Dustin's copy of the 600. It really looks a good deal worse than 400 with 1.4.
nick0954 wrote:
From Dustin's video, it looks like the 400 is sharper than the 600 bare and the 400 + 1.4 TC is also ever so slightly sharper (or at worst equal) to the 600 bare as well. The 600 can do a respectable 840 and the 400 + 2x looks a mess to me (as does the 600 + 2x).
So I think this comes down to if you need a 400+560 or a 600+840. I wouldn't use either of these with 2x TCs except in case of emergency. If you don't need 840, the 400+560 looks the best buy.
Justin Stone wrote:
I wonder if something is off with Dustin's copy of the 600. It really looks a good deal worse than 400 with 1.4.
I really hope that isn't representative of the majority of copies of the 600. I hope that he either had a poor copy or screwed up the test somehow.
Seems crazy that the 600 with just two extra elements over the 400 wouldn't best it when you stack a bunch of 1.4TC elements on the end of the 400.
InFocus2014 wrote:
I was ready to pre-order the 600mm to possibly replace my GM 300mm f2.8 (w/converters), when I read a comment from a tester that said the stabilization didn't seem as good as other Sony telephoto primes. That caused me to apply the brakes. I'll, now, just wait until the hype is over from the reviewers that are in the good graces of Sony (where they receive cherry-picked pre-production samples and cannot possibly be completely unbiased). The minimum focus distance is also a concern.
At 79, stabilization has become increasingly important to me, so I do not want any unpleasant surprises. I think I can squeak by with my GM 300 for a little while longer. ...Show more →
The main thing I liked about my rented copy of the 300 2.8 with the 2x was the stabilization. Hopefully the 600mm is close to ias good as that or better.
Since I've decided I"m not willing to drop $7k on that combo (it just wasn't sharp enough), the next metric of note for the 600 is how much better (if at all) is the stabilization compared to the 200-600mm. Hopefully it's a meaningful step up from that.
I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that sharpness of the 600mm f6.3 would be similar to the 400mm f4.5 + 1.4xTC, based on what we know of the optical designs. Bokeh comparison would likely be the same as well, based on the comments from Dustin. We just need to realize that the 600mm F6.3 has a permanent built-in TC that allowed Sony to significantly reduce it's size and weight.
Dustin Abbott Review We can see from the above example that the scene was complicated – a “grove” of ferns all densely packed together, but the 400mm F4.5 GM still handles the rendering well. This is one area where I definitely preferred the 400mm F4.5 GM over the 600mm F6.3, as I felt the bokeh is smoother and transitions to defocus nicer on the 400mm.
arbitrage wrote:
I really hope that isn't representative of the majority of copies of the 600. I hope that he either had a poor copy or screwed up the test somehow.
Seems crazy that the 600 with just two extra elements over the 400 wouldn't best it when you stack a bunch of 1.4TC elements on the end of the 400.
Seems at odds with Fabian Fopp's results. I wonder when Steve Perry will have his tests for the 400 and 600 up. He's usually quick out of the gate. Benchmark is the Nikon 600 PF IMO.
While the size and weight of both lenses is fantastic, the reviews leave me thinking that I will pass on them. They just don't seem to have the fantastic image quality that the 300/2.8 and the new 100-400/4.5 have. Perhaps in the future, if the 400mm comes up used for a good price, then I would consider getting it, but probably won't. I have the 300/2.8 with both tc's and love that lens.
I also have an exceptional copy of the 200-600, but am probably going to buy the new 100-400/4.5 in a few months owing to the fantastic rendering and constant f/4.5. I think that for my purposes, the new 100-400 together with the 300 and tc's will meet my needs perfectly. Not sure if I will keep the 200-600 - that is a difficult decision because my copy is really really good and they are not selling for much anymore, so it might just be better to hold onto it.
hoodlum90 wrote:
We just need to realize that the 600mm F6.3 has a permanent built-in TC that allowed Sony to significantly reduce it's size and weight.
Where are people getting this bizarre idea?
It's physically not possible, given on the respective weights of the two lenses - unless you think Sony added 160g of lead weights to the 400mm f4.5 to trick people...
I retract my statement about the 600 since the comparison between 400 and 600 was a mashup done by a forum member and not by Dustin Abbott. We still need an actual comparison or even better comparison between the 300 & TC and 600.
Cliff L. wrote:
Where are people getting this bizarre idea?
It's physically not possible, given on the respective weights of the two lenses - unless you think Sony added 160g of lead weights to the 400mm f4.5 to trick people...
Adding the capabilities of a TC into the 400mm f4.5 design doesn't mean the TC optical elements were just added to the end of optical design. By designing the 600mm with the TC capability permanently built-in, Sony was able to move around some of the lens elements at the back to fit in the additional lens elements needed without having to expand the size of the lens that much. Sony may have also been able to squeeze a bit more optical performance out the 600mm with this approach, over just adding a TC on the 400mm.
But you cannot completely overcome the physics of adding these lens elements that provide a similar result to adding a TC. Many of the reviews have mentioned slightly more fringing with the 600mm, which we would also normally attribute to adding a TC. Dustin specially mentioned that bokeh transition quality was noticeably better with the 400mm, which is usually seen when comparing a bare lens and adding a TC. The same minimum focus length for both lenses also suggests that something like a TC was added to get to 600mm.
None of this means someone should choose the 400mm + TC over the 600mm if you will always be shooting at 600mm. But we should also be realistic of what to expect from this 600mm based on the design approach from Sony. The weight/size saving of this 600mm over other 600mm primes may be reason alone to choose the Sony 600mm, even if it is not quite as sharp as other similar but heavier/larger 600mm lenses.
hoodlum90 wrote:
Adding the capabilities of a TC into the 400mm f4.5 design doesn't mean the TC optical elements were just added to the end of optical design.
That is a totally meaningless statement. What is the optical definition of "capabilities of a TC"?
bcaslis wrote:
I retract my statement about the 600 since the comparison between 400 and 600 was a mashup done by a forum member and not by Dustin Abbott. We still need an actual comparison or even better comparison between the 300 & TC and 600.
Dustin is planning another video that compares the 400mm + TC with the 600mm. Maybe that will help answer some questions.
Cliff L. wrote:
Where are people getting this bizarre idea?
It's physically not possible, given on the respective weights of the two lenses - unless you think Sony added 160g of lead weights to the 400mm f4.5 to trick people...
That's weird bogus info on the web. The slower 400 and 600 lens designs are similar to other Sony teles. The fluorite and fancy aspherics are gone, but there is no built in TC.
Would the 600mm 6.3 have issues on the A7RVI (and V) due to DLA?
The combination of high resolution 35mm sensors like the A7RVi and A7RV with small aperture lenses will be hitting the limits of their resolution capabilities due to diffraction limited Apertures.
Maybe that’s why influencers and reviewers are showing it to be not as sharp as the 400/4.5
The cameras in Sony’s line that can better deal with smaller aperture telephoto lenses are the A7V, A7CII and the A9III.
Photo pills and camera decisions have DLA calculators.
nick0954 wrote:
So I think this comes down to if you need a 400+560 or a 600+840.
Agreed. As I have the 100-400mm f/4.5 and 400-800mm, I am not looking to add one as a regular for wildlife shooting. Most likely I would rent a 400mm if I needed longer glass when traveling with severe weight limits for carry on.
Lifeinpictures wrote:
Would the 600mm 6.3 have issues on the A7RVI (and V) due to DLA?
The combination of high resolution 35mm sensors like the A7RVi and A7RV with small aperture lenses will be hitting the limits of their resolution capabilities due to diffraction limited Apertures.
Maybe that’s why influencers and reviewers are showing it to be not as sharp as the 400/4.5
The cameras in Sony’s line that can better deal with smaller aperture telephoto lenses are the A7V, A7CII and the A9III.
Photo pills and camera decisions have DLA calculators.
Christopher Frost is the only reviewer to recognize this phenomenon when he tested this lens with the A7RVI....Show more →
Still looking for more 600 6.3 vs 300+2x TC, was only able to find this, but on the A7RVI looks fine, i think maybe this diffraction thing overblown or something.
600 f/6.3 is clearly better in contrast and sharpness. I would also suspect it's AF to have an edge too.
If diffraction limit is f/5.6 or so on the A7RVI, I don't think using f/6.3 will be any problem, it's only just into the DL aperture. I only worry at f/11.
Dustin Abbott usually shows this in his reviews.
A simple test would be with say the 400 f/4.5 stopped down to f/5.6 and then f/6.3 and see if there is any noticeable diffraction softening. IMO the answer will be NO.
