Jemini wrote:
I swear this is my last post about sharpness of this lens
I'm convinced it's at the level of 300/2.8 (which was the sharpest tele I've ever used).
I still have to wait a bit before I can snap mine up, but these samples are really nice to see!
I feel like the 600/6.3 got most of the love online but te 400/4.5 is a lot more practical for the majority of people, myself included
If Sony can make a 400 f/4.5 this good, please can they make a big brother 500 f/4.5 next with 1.6kg max weight and 0.2-0.25x max magnification. That would be worth $5k and an instant purchase.
Make one with built-in 1.4x and add 2k if you want. I'll buy two 😀
Pixel Perfect wrote:
If Sony can make a 400 f/4.5 this good, please can they make a big brother 500 f/4.5 next with 1.6kg max weight and 0.2-0.25x max magnification. That would be worth $5k and an instant purchase.
MohChee wrote:
400 F4.5 is 994g & 242mm
600 F6.3 is 995g & 263mm
They are basically the same weight/size.
Just to add:
I just did a ~15 mile hike today with both lenses. Me and my spouse swapped between the 400 F4.5 + TC & 600 F6.3 bare. Both of us preferred the 600 F6.3 much more due to weight. 1.4x/2.0x TC only weighs 150-200g extra weight but it was more noticeable than expected.
Carrying the 400+TC on lens foot with cross body straps gave me more shoulder tenderness. The 600 felt like nothing. Maybe because of the weight distribution? The front element is very light even with hood. While the rear is heavier esp with TC adding leverage. It bounces, jerks and pivots more while walking.
Since you're not birding like me the 400 makes way more sense for sports.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
If Sony can make a 400 f/4.5 this good, please can they make a big brother 500 f/4.5 next with 1.6kg max weight and 0.2-0.25x max magnification. That would be worth $5k and an instant purchase.
arbitrage wrote:
After viewing the new comparison charts from TDP, I think the 400 is the clear winner of a lens from an IQ perspective. Even comparing the 400/2x vs 600/1.4 the 400 edges it out in the center frame.
From an AF perspective the 600 maybe has an edge at the similar focal lengths but that is TBD.
If the 600 doesn't have a noticeable AF advantage then the 400 is the winner. You save money, get a shorter lens and have the option to shoot at 400/4.5.
I'm having a serious debate with myself if I should switch my 600 order for the 400. My 600 is supposed to ship tomorrow so I don't have much time to decide
I think if I didn't already own the 300GM I'd go for the 400 for sure. ...Show more →
arbitrage wrote:
After viewing the new comparison charts from TDP, I think the 400 is the clear winner of a lens from an IQ perspective. Even comparing the 400/2x vs 600/1.4 the 400 edges it out in the center frame.
From an AF perspective the 600 maybe has an edge at the similar focal lengths but that is TBD.
If the 600 doesn't have a noticeable AF advantage then the 400 is the winner. You save money, get a shorter lens and have the option to shoot at 400/4.5.
I'm having a serious debate with myself if I should switch my 600 order for the 400. My 600 is supposed to ship tomorrow so I don't have much time to decide
I think if I didn't already own the 300GM I'd go for the 400 for sure. ...Show more →
I understand your dilemma; I own both the 400mm f/4.5 and the 300mm f/2.8.
That said, I sometimes consider selling the 300mm f/2.8 to get the 600mm f/6.3, as I’m not particularly fond of using teleconverters—either with the 400mm f/4.5 or in general.
A lens is fundamentally designed to be used without a teleconverter. I own both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. While both work well with the 300mm f/2.8 and the 400mm f/4.5, they do result in a loss of contrast and sharpness. On my A7R 6, cropping an image taken with the native lens—even though it means ending up with fewer pixels—consistently yields better results.
Using the 1.4x teleconverter on the 400mm f/4.5 gives you 560mm, which is generally decent, but I don’t believe it truly outperforms the 600mm f/6.3. (One complication is that there can be some variation in quality between individual copies of the 600mm lens.)
Autofocus slows down slightly when using teleconverters on the 400mm; it still functions well, but the success rate and sharpness—especially when tracking fast-moving birds—drop significantly.
That is why I very, very rarely use teleconverters. I believe a native 600mm f/6.3 would be a better choice if your priority is the best possible autofocus performance and maximizing the number of pixels on your subject.
Unless, like me, you prioritize maximum versatility.
valmofab wrote:
I understand your dilemma; I own both the 400mm f/4.5 and the 300mm f/2.8.
That said, I sometimes consider selling the 300mm f/2.8 to get the 600mm f/6.3, as I’m not particularly fond of using teleconverters—either with the 400mm f/4.5 or in general.
A lens is fundamentally designed to be used without a teleconverter. I own both the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. While both work well with the 300mm f/2.8 and the 400mm f/4.5, they do result in a loss of contrast and sharpness. On my A7R 6, cropping an image taken with the native lens—even though it means ending up with fewer pixels—consistently yields better results.
Using the 1.4x teleconverter on the 400mm f/4.5 gives you 560mm, which is generally decent, but I don’t believe it truly outperforms the 600mm f/6.3. (One complication is that there can be some variation in quality between individual copies of the 600mm lens.)
Autofocus slows down slightly when using teleconverters on the 400mm; it still functions well, but the success rate and sharpness—especially when tracking fast-moving birds—drop significantly.
That is why I very, very rarely use teleconverters. I believe a native 600mm f/6.3 would be a better choice if your priority is the best possible autofocus performance and maximizing the number of pixels on your subject.
Unless, like me, you prioritize maximum versatility. ...Show more →
"especially when tracking fast-moving birds—drop significantly."
I tested this last weekend (400+1.4) and I didn't find it dropped 'significantly'. Almost all shots, that I had in the frame, were in focus. Some were not sharp because of my SS or subject was too far. With 2X, it drops further. But I was surprised by the number of in focus images. Anyhow as you mentioned when the aperture goes above 6.3, the lens didn't produce significantly more data. The additional stop ISO cost data too. I might stick with 1.4x only. 2X may go to another home soon
