p.12 #1 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
Some sample shots with the 1.4x and 2x on the lens.
The paid actor was rewarded with a tasty apple. She wouldn't stay far enough back so the shots are far from award winning but they are full res and you can see the original image size by clicking on the Flickr link.
Image processing - Import to LR + Auto, sharpness at default 40, export.
I wouldn't hesitate to use the 1.4x, the results are really sharp. Now, the doe is almost stationary so I can't really say how the AF performance will do with fast moving subjects. I'll try some bird shots tomorrow.
The 2x -- really not bad, would use rarely but it's there if needed.
This little lens is fun to shoot with and the 1.4x on it... like the extra reach. Is it better than my 400-800... on par. I'll keep the 400-800 as it take the 1.4x and 2x really well if needed.
p.12 #2 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
billsnature wrote:
This lens is a joy to use due to its size and weight, and it is capable of taking great pictures, but my copy is just not as sharp as my 300 with 2X or my 400-800. Hoping to get a different copy.
p.12 #3 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
aryanenzo wrote:
How did you do this test? How is it possible the bare 600 is softer than 600 + 1.4x and 2x? Definitely seems like there's a lot of bad copies of this lens. There's no way the 200-600 should be sharper than the 600.
Unless it was mis focused, but then how are we seeing so many mis focusing tests? its unlikely everyone is making mistakes. It could very well be a faulty AF system/calibration like with many, many 400-800s out there including mine.
I am getting mine next week mostly and I am braced to return it.
Ideally the test chart I used should be printed much larger than 8.5x11. Maybe that played a part into it with min focal distance? Shrugs. I tried my best to fill the frame then moved back the for each focal distance.
Was in a rush to go to bed. Might be my mistake too when cut/pasting together and reverse some shots? I also used the JPEG previews to finish faster since my laptop didn't have Lightroom installed.
I redid everything with the same files but this time RAW exports with Lightroom. Bare 600 F6.5 looks a tiny bit better.
My 200-600 might be a better than average copy. Center performance in general for most lenses are very close. Where it changes most are the corners where my 200-600 becomes soft with more fringing.
p.12 #4 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
Brighter day out today, but still somewhat tough shooting into the shade/sun, birds were set up into the sun. Nice day out lots of goober in the park forced the birds to be in the darker corners, but still good results I think, yesterdays set was better though but still wow, 600 6.3 definitely punching above its weight.
ILCE-1FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens600mmf/6.31/2000s2000 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens600mmf/6.31/2000s2500 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens600mmf/6.31/1600s2500 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens600mmf/6.31/1600s1600 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens600mmf/6.31/1250s6400 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens600mmf/6.31/1250s6400 ISO0.0 EV
p.12 #5 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
hatch1921 wrote:
A fun morning out. I didn't see a ton of wildlife to photograph but I was able to capture a few shots. The goat shots are all full resolution, feel free to click on the Flickr link and have a look at the details. These goats were loose just outside of Parker Lake here in southern Arizona. It's likely they will return home in the evening.
The Kestrel flew off quickly right after I snapped a couple of shots, I drove further down the mountain and it was closer to the road, which was great of course, and I was able to capture some nice shots. It flew off after about 30 seconds.
Thoughts about the lens. On the ride home I was thinking about how great this lens is, I know it's the "honeymoon" phase but it's really nice. Not just from a sharpness or performance perspective, from the point of how many people will be able to us it. Think about how many people gave up shooting longer focal lengths because the size and weight of the bigger lenses in this range were no longer manageable. People who sold off their big primes or even find the 200-600 or 400-800 too heavy to shoot. This is a wonderful lens for so many people. No, it's not F/4 or F/5.6 but a little extra noise and maybe not the most "scene crushing" bokeh, but wow, those IMO are minor tradeoffs to be able to shoot at 600mm+ with such a light package for so many people.
The AF is fast, accurate, the lens is sharp enough I don't need to add sharpening in most cases. Shooting with it, the lens reminds me of the 500PF I used to own when shooting Nikon but lighter. As I mentioned in a previous post, I forgot about the lens and just shot. Another thing, access while shooting, it might be some simple, but I was able to have the camera/lens sitting on my leg with the lens pointed up, resting my hand on the lens, and when it was time to shoot, it was right there.
Now... Sony... if you are listening (lol) next logical step is the 800 F/6.3... light, small, and amazing like the 600/6.3. I would buy one the second you release it.
I still need to try the 600 with the TCs and compare it against the 300 with TCs. Maybe this evening or tomorrow.
I do hope those of you who have purchased the lens are having as much fun as I am shooting with it. I still can't believe we can shoot at 600mm with such a small, light lens.
Totally agree with one minor exception. The new 600mm f6.3 is a dream lens as long as you got a good copy. The one exception to your comments....I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Sony to produce an 800mm f6.3. Unless they decide and are able to do Fresnel like Nikon, that lens won't be light or cheap. My bet is Sony might well do an 800 f/8. They can do that relatively cheaply as they already have similar front elements in their 400-800mm.
p.12 #6 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
pdog109 wrote:
I don't think Sony would ever make these lenses, there too "perfect".
They don't want to hurt 400 2.8 or 600f4 sales, because why get one of those if you can get a 500 4.5?
Sony needs to split to middle between big primes and zooms and they did with the 400 4.5 and 600 6.3.
Its enough of a difference between 600f4 and 600 6.3 where either one you choose you are making a compromise.
Sports journalists are the big buyers for 400 f/2.8 and they won't switch to 400 f/4. I think the market of buyers outside that might prefer a much smaller, lighter, cheaper but still decently fast offering however. 600 f/5.6 would me more useful for a larger group of wildlife shooters than a 300 f/2.8 + 2x combo, so sales of that combo would probably drop a lot though.
My opinion is if you can make X dollars selling a lot more cheaper lenses than X dollars selling a lot fewer more expensive lenses, who cares. I'm only talking 1/3rd stop, if what you say is true even the new releases will hurt 400 f/2.8 600 f/4 sales. IMO Sony might make a lot more money from a 400 f/4 than 400 f/2.8. I don't want to lug a near 3kg behemoth around even if money were no object. Been there done that.
arbitrage wrote:
My biggest head scratcher when viewing those 600/1.4 vs 400-800 comparison shots is the DOF difference. Something has to be way different with the focal plane to be rendering that bark so sharp in the 400-800 shots and so OOF on the 600/1.4 shots.
840 f/9 vs 800 f/8 shouldn't be that different and there should be a little more DOF in the 840 shot, not the other way round.
My thoughts too. Mind you the prime does have more magnification so DoF would be reduced at the same distance to subject and f/9 vs f/8 would only be tiny amount extra DoF if we aren't a fair way from subject. For example at 5m to subject the difference is about 0.17cm or 1.7mm. At 15m the difference is about 2cm.
p.12 #7 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
Totally agree with one minor exception. The new 600mm f6.3 is a dream lens as long as you got a good copy. The one exception to your comments....I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Sony to produce an 800mm f6.3. Unless they decide and are able to do Fresnel like Nikon, that lens won't be light or cheap. My bet is Sony might well do an 800 f/8. They can do that relatively cheaply as they already have similar front elements in their 400-800mm.
I can dream a little
They could copy Nikon and I would buy it, I would bet they could shave a little weight off as well. Either way... 1st world problems and it's never been a better time for photographers.
I was lucky to get a sharp copy of the lens, I hope there returns are low and maybe contained to a small lot of lenses.
p.12 #9 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
MohChee wrote:
Ideally the test chart I used should be printed much larger than 8.5x11. Maybe that played a part into it with min focal distance? Shrugs. I tried my best to fill the frame then moved back the for each focal distance.
Was in a rush to go to bed. Might be my mistake too when cut/pasting together and reverse some shots? I also used the JPEG previews to finish faster since my laptop didn't have Lightroom installed.
I redid everything with the same files but this time RAW exports with Lightroom. Bare 600 F6.5 looks a tiny bit better.
My 200-600 might be a better than average copy. Center performance in general for most lenses are very close. Where it changes most are the corners where my 200-600 becomes soft with more fringing. ...Show more →
Don’t move the tripod when doing this kind of test. Fill the frame with the 2x, yes but don’t move anything for the 1.4x and bare lens tests
p.12 #10 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
I went out and wanted to see how the lens did in BIF. NO TC added and minimal processing in PS. Pretty bright outside today so light was not an issue
So easy to carry the A7RVI and lens around while hiking. Want to compare with the 200-600 an even my 600/4
ILCE-7RM6FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens600mmf/6.31/1600s250 ISO-0.7 EV
ILCE-7RM6FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens600mmf/6.31/1000s320 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM6FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens600mmf/6.31/2000s400 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM6FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens600mmf/6.31/2500s200 ISO-0.7 EV
p.12 #11 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
aCuria wrote:
Don’t move the tripod when doing this kind of test. Fill the frame with the 2x, yes but don’t move anything for the 1.4x and bare lens tests
If I were trying to determine if a TC is worthwhile vs cropping then I wouldn't move the tripod.
But I am looking at just optics at difference focal lengths. e.g 400F4.5+1.4x vs bare 600F6.5 both would be the same distance away. In my linked image grid that would be comparing down vertically instead of horizontal
p.12 #12 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
MohChee wrote:
If I were trying to determine if a TC is worthwhile vs cropping then I wouldn't move the tripod.
But I am looking at just optics at difference focal lengths. e.g 400F4.5+1.4x vs bare 600F6.5 both would be the same distance away. In my linked image grid that would be comparing down vertically instead of horizontal
Then you should not present the results shot at different distances combined into one image.
After all only the crops shot in the same conditions can be compared against each other.
Make it clear which shots were done at the same distance
p.12 #13 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
Ldls-17 wrote:
The-Digital-Picture.com—a source I consider entirely credible—has just published the results of image quality tests for the Sony 600mm f/6.3 and Sony 400mm f/4.5 lenses.
Best regards. ...Show more →
I do not reach the same conclusions about the 600mm.
I think his naked lens shows a lack of contrast and significant inferiority with TCs
In both the 400 4.5 + 2x and 400-800 comparisons the 600 6.3 + 1.4 image is hazy and blurry and clearly different from the compared lens.
600 looks close to 300 2.8 + 2x but still it is less contrasty.
He may have gotten a bad copy but I remember Dustin Abbott's results also not being good, It was suspected that he maybe got a bad copy or was not really specialised in testing supertele lenses. We also saw some examples and frustration from two users in this thread itself.
I currently stand by my earlier opinion that the 600mm is a derivative of a successful 400mm 4.5 design with compromises and its performance does not befit the GM label. It could be of interest for people who want to travel light but I don't see why they would not pick up the even cheaper 400mm if that is the point.
I am happy to see more examples to change my opinion. I think if such a design could be made to work well, the weight, MFD and compact size would have made a compelling package.
p.12 #14 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
Sony 800 f6.3 would be about 1.6kg, if using the same weight comparison of Sony 600 6.3 to Nikon 600 6.3 PF.
Nikon 600 1470g. Sony 600 995g.
Nikon 800 PF 2385g.
It has been shown by both Sony and Sigma that non PF lenses can be made lighter than existing PF lenses.
Sigma 500 5.6 1365g is lighter than Nikon 500 5.6 PF 1460g
Sony 600 6.3 is A LOT lighter than Nikon 600 6.3 PF
evanhanded wrote:
Totally agree with one minor exception. The new 600mm f6.3 is a dream lens as long as you got a good copy. The one exception to your comments....I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Sony to produce an 800mm f6.3. Unless they decide and are able to do Fresnel like Nikon, that lens won't be light or cheap. My bet is Sony might well do an 800 f/8. They can do that relatively cheaply as they already have similar front elements in their 400-800mm.
p.12 #15 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
I have a 600 on order and supposed to ship to me tomorrow or Tuesday. I'm seriously considering calling and swapping the order to the 400. If I didn't already own the 300GM I'd swap to the 400 for sure.
These TDP samples show the 400/2x slightly better in the center than the 600/1.4 which is impressive.
The 400 is slightly better than the 300/1.4 and the 400/1.4 is slightly better than the 300/2x.
I think from an IQ perspective the 400 is a better lens to buy. But I'm hoping that from an AF perspective that the 600 at 600 and 840 may still be better than using the 300 or 400 with more TC power to match it. I don't know though. If the AF isn't noticeably better than the 400 really looks like a winner. Especially if one doesn't already own the 300GM.
p.12 #16 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
pdog109 wrote:
The 600 6.3 looks better overall to me. And the pics i took yesterday were all pretty good, and i think if i had the 300 with 2x TC like i normally did most of them wouldn't look that good. Its hard to explain but now i feel like always shooting with 2x TC its like fighting an uphill battle right, everything has to go right for you to get really sharp pics and now shooting with 600 6.3 is like getting both feet back. Honestly really liked the pics i took yesterday, they came out better than expected. Already listed the 300 here on FM for sale...Show more →
I've owned a 300/2.8. feel its a specialized lens that most of us bought due to price. With slower dslr and film in the olden days it was useful for indoor sports. But for critters, even 2X + 300mm isn't long of most.
Personally I don't need zoom above 400mm. The new 600 can even be a kit lens with 24-105/100-400 /600. That's a big kit in a big backpack, but still doable. Fo me, and I think most people, the 400-800 is over the "kit" size and weight limit.
I would find the 400/4.5 interesting in the days when I shot my children in sports. Although the new fast 100-400 would also be tempting.
p.12 #17 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
arbitrage wrote:
I have a 600 on order and supposed to ship to me tomorrow or Tuesday. I'm seriously considering calling and swapping the order to the 400. If I didn't already own the 300GM I'd swap to the 400 for sure.
These TDP samples show the 400/2x slightly better in the center than the 600/1.4 which is impressive.
The 400 is slightly better than the 300/1.4 and the 400/1.4 is slightly better than the 300/2x.
I think from an IQ perspective the 400 is a better lens to buy. But I'm hoping that from an AF perspective that the 600 at 600 and 840 may still be better than using the 300 or 400 with more TC power to match it. I don't know though. If the AF isn't noticeably better than the 400 really looks like a winner. Especially if one doesn't already own the 300GM....Show more →
I look forward to your thoughts about the 600
I'm betting, if you receive a sharp copy, you are going to have a blast with the lens. I can't say it's as sharp as the 400 or not but I can tell you, at least my copy, it's very sharp. The files in terms of sharpness remind me of the 300, where I don't have to sharpen the images in post. Now edge to edge and center sharpness, the recent images shot with the lens were animal shots and not charts, for my old eyes, the lens meets my standards and isn't being returned.
I'm contemplating picking up the 400 as I'm really impressed with this little lens. The 200-600 will hit the market, likely the 100-400, and I need to test the 300 with the 2x to see how much of a difference there is in performance and output. Even though the 400-800 felt like a tank when I picked it up yesterday, it stays. I got lucky I suppose and my copy is very sharp.
Again, looking forward to your thoughts about the lens and some images.
I would buy one the second you release it. 
