p.14 #2 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
duncangr wrote:
..........Not convinced the Sony 600f63 deserves a GM label - hopefully that changes soon
That's the interesting part. Why did Sony choose not rate it "G"? There are very good G primes.
But I'm skeptical of reports/examples of the new 600 that report issues. I'm also skeptical of sample variation.
Its easy to mess up casual long focal length testing
Even so, I'm glad I don't want the lens until spring. I prefer a later batch if there are any concerns.
* One difference in GM lenses is that Sony says they are individually inspected and adjusted before shipment. I assume that lesser rated lenses may have automated quality control.
p.14 #4 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
A friend just got his today so we paid the about to fledge eagles a visit for a real world test !! Taken from exactly the same position - phew looks like A7R6 cropped with bare lens is a better option than the A1ii + TC. I don’t have the A1ii bare lens images yet.
This seem to be a substantial improvement over the 400-800 with and without the TC. Did I mention that it is ridiculously small !! The 300 feels like a 600 f/4 next to it. This looks like an easy win for the 600 f/4 - but still processing the 200-600 and 400-800 and 300 images.
A7RM6 600 F63 f/10 ?? (!!! yep don’t ask !!)
A1ii 600F63 + 1.4TC
Apple Decoder v8 since v9 doesn’t support the camera yet and DxO doesn’t support the lens so these will improve considerably when Apple support the camera.
p.14 #6 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
ps09 wrote:
As someone who has shot the 600 f4 for almost 12 years - last 5 with Sony and 7 before that with Nikon, introducing the 1.4 and going to 840 requires pretty much perfect atmospheric conditions.
Good point about the atmospherics, i sometimes forget about that haha. I probably encountered some of that the other day on my outing with the 600 6.3 and 1.4x. I think that's what I first saw myself when using 600f4 and 1.4x, I was disappointed and went back to using just 600f4 bare. But the 1.4x does have its uses if you can work around the atmospherics, but then again sometimes you cannot.
ps09 wrote:
My thought when purchasing the lens was that if it was near the quality of the 300/2x in a smaller and lighter package, I would be happy. I think it will be.
I had the same thought as well, i think the 600 6.3 offers better image quality and for now the AF seems to be on par with it, but i think it could be better. Haven't been able to really test the AF yet on BIF extensively though, need to go back to salt lake where there was tons of flying gulls to practice BIF on.
I got the 600 6.3 because i used 300+2x TC mostly, so why not use a bare lens at 600 vs a lens with a 2x TC in front of it.
5.6 vs 6.3 is not much of a difference to me.
p.14 #8 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
umut_h_toprak wrote:
Interesting. What would be your positive/negative controls for you to decide if the design is a derivative or not? The point would be to get your ray tracing result from this pair and to apply it to other pairs and see if the approach is transferable.
I cannot suggest a positive control. This lens pair seems to be unique in this design approach if my memory is correct. Maybe others can chime in. It is often mentioned that Canon's RF 800mm and 1200mm's have integrated and non-adjustable TCs but it is not a 1:1 scenario to the one happening here. The small differences between this 400 - 600 lens pair does not exactly constitute a 1.4x TC design.
For negative controls you could in principle take 35mm f1.4 - 50 mm f2 (any system) or 400mm f4.5 - 600mm f6.3 (Nikon Z) designs.
p.14 #9 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
duncangr wrote:
A friend just got his today so we paid the about to fledge eagles a visit for a real world test !! Taken from exactly the same position - phew looks like A7R6 cropped with bare lens is a better option than the A1ii + TC. I don’t have the A1ii bare lens images yet.
This seem to be a substantial improvement over the 400-800 with and without the TC. Did I mention that it is ridiculously small !! The 300 feels like a 600 f/4 next to it. This looks like an easy win for the 600 f/4 - but still processing the 200-600 and 400-800 and 300 images.
A1ii 600F63 + 1.4TC
Apple Decoder v8 since v9 doesn’t support the camera yet and DxO doesn’t support the lens so these will improve considerably when Apple support the camera.
"This seem to be a substantial improvement over the 400-800 with and without the TC. "
I pulled in one of the shots from the 600 and the 800 into PS... my old eyes can't see much of a difference, let alone a substantial one. They both look great.
p.14 #11 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
hatch1921 wrote:
"This seem to be a substantial improvement over the 400-800 with and without the TC. "
I pulled in one of the shots from the 600 and the 800 into PS... my old eyes can't see much of a difference, let alone a substantial one. They both look great.
What am I missing
I did say 'seems like' before have looked at all the 400-800 images. Not a huge difference but the one fits in your pocket and you could carry it all day long !! That's a huge benefit.
And Sony were selling them for less than the 400-800 at one of their Scene days here.
p.14 #12 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
duncangr wrote:
I did say 'seems like' before have looked at all the 400-800 images. Not a huge difference but the one fits in your pocket and you could carry it all day long !! That's a huge benefit.
And Sony were selling them for less than the 400-800 at one of their Scene days here.
Gotcha! Yeah... I shot a lot yesterday with the 600 and I had the 400-800 with me, I picked it up to bring it inside and WOW the weight difference was crazy. I still can't see myself parting with the 400-800 as it handles TCs very well.
p.14 #13 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
hatch1921 wrote:
"This seem to be a substantial improvement over the 400-800 with and without the TC. "
I pulled in one of the shots from the 600 and the 800 into PS... my old eyes can't see much of a difference, let alone a substantial one. They both look great.
What am I missing
I think a lot of it is you have an excellent copy of the 400-800.
That lens (and the 200-600) seem to have some of the largest copy variations around. So for someone with a mid or bottom tier 400-800, it'd be easy to imagine the 600 6.3 being substantially better.
p.14 #14 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
hatch1921 wrote:
"This seem to be a substantial improvement over the 400-800 with and without the TC. "
I pulled in one of the shots from the 600 and the 800 into PS... my old eyes can't see much of a difference, let alone a substantial one. They both look great.
What am I missing
All the 600 images on this thread are fine IMHO. All I see is a bunch of comparisons where I get eyestrain try to see the differences. I also had a great 400-800. I won't bother comparing similar shots from it because every time I pick up this new 600 I get a big smile on my face.
p.14 #15 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
pdog109 wrote:
Used the 1.4x today on the 600, lots of blurry pics but some sharp ones too. Kinda disappointed in the results or maybe i'm just being too much of a pixel peeper perfectionist? Shots seem soft, don't have the pop of the bare 600 6.3 i saw with my previous pics. Or maybe just f9 is the limiting factor? I think using the 600 bare is much better, as seen by my previous outings. Think you really need to concentrate on holding steady and increase shutter speed. Couple of times i was kneeling down and had my elbow resting on my knee for added stability and still had blurry shots. Missed on some BIF shots (the harrier, see pics) but could have been user error mostly likely. The 1.4x TC i have i know is good, i used it on 600f4 and 300 2.8. I still think getting the 600 is the better idea for me, even though the test charts and people saying 400 is better and 600 is trash. Maybe just use 600 bare most of the time and only 1.4x if i know birds are going to be really far. But i think using 600 6.3 is better than 300+2x TC. If i did get the 400, i would use it as 400+1.4x most of time anyway, just like i used 300 with 2x TC most of the time. The idea of using 400+1.4x for 560 6.3, is almost the same as 600 6.3, but its not. Its missing 40mm and at the same 6.3 and now your shooting through a TC again. When i had the 600f4 i didn't use the 1.4x for a long time, just kept it at 600. When i first used the 1.4x on the 600f4 i didn't like it, took a while to get used to it. And then of course some say 600 is not needed, use 400 and crop. If your shooting birds, you are going to crop anyway and crop alot, so why not start at 600. Ooof.
edit: Wondering if I should turn off OSS at these higher shutter speeds and if the results would be better? I know manual recommends doing so above 1/1600 but in reality i can't be arsed with messing around with the external side of the camera. I'm inclined to just leave it on OSS mode 2 at all times and call it a day....Show more →
It looks like you got a good copy!! Congratulations. I got a dud, and in my experiments it was bad with OSS on or OFF. OSS on looked no worse.
So far, I am with you. My 200-600 appears to be another excellent copy, and remains quite good with the 1.4x. Yes, it’s twice the weight of the 600 or 400, but then it appears as good at 400 and 600 as the two primes and I can swap between each instantly — and still have more below them.
p.14 #17 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
rd4tile wrote:
All the 600 images on this thread are fine IMHO. All I see is a bunch of comparisons where I get eyestrain try to see the differences. I also had a great 400-800. I won't bother comparing similar shots from it because every time I pick up this new 600 I get a big smile on my face.
Isn't the lens just fun to shoot with? It's crazy light... I find myself not even thinking about the lens as it disappears while taking shots. The 400-800 or even the 200-600 constantly remind me they are there and weighty. Good times!
