billsnature wrote:
Here is the best of 6 shots from 600 with 1.4X vs a new random sample from 400-800 at 800. 400-800 on left and 600 w 1.4X on right. The 400 to 800 is still sharper. Even when scaled to match size. Notice the background sharpness showing greater DOF in 400-800mm in last image.
Possible explanations:
1) I have the best 400-800 ever made (Could be true. It is stellar)
2) f8 vs f9 is a big deal. Seems unlikely that if falls off a cliff like this but possibly
3) I have a bad copy of the 1.4X TC. Very possible, but looks OK on other lenses.
4) I have a bad copy of 600mm f6.3 (I will look harder at 300GM vs 600 to estimate)
5) 600mm f6.3 doesn't take TC well. This was true for 400mm f2.8 and could be true for this lens. The strange DOF difference could be a clue here
I am hoping others can confirm, but my results aren't way different than some YouTube reviews. Might look closer at longer distance....Show more →
At first, I suspected your cam front focused a tad due to the background being so much more blurred. It seems like with the amount of background blur, there should be more foreground in better focus. However, there's nothing in front of the eyeball on the bird that appears any sharper than the eyeball, so I think one has to assume your camera nailed focus as well as it could -- unless there's some other evidence it majorly front-focused? If not, it seems as if the result is what it is.
I guess more importantly for you is that regardless, it is what it is for your combined system and your 400-800 is clearly superior. If you can live with the 400-800's weight, I definitely understand why you'd return the 600 -- I would...
nmerc_photos wrote:
If your tests actually showed what you're stating - I'd have no issue with your surprise and disappointment.
But when you create a heavily flawed "test" and then admit that you didn't make an attempt to make it fair - that's pretty ridiculous.
You can't post an OOF image and draw ANY conclusions, other than user error. It would've taken you what, 3 seconds or less, to get a locked on in focus image to post?
Think about it from anyone else's position. I could go out right now and take the 600GM, point it at a toy bird, miss focus, and then come in here and post "horrible news! the 600GM is worse than every other lens!". In that case, the 600GM has a track record so it would be quickly dismissed, ideally. But in your case, you are one of the fortunate few with the lens in hand - so people are putting stock in your findings.
Your second set of testing is at least not as clearly flawed as the first, so that's progress. I appreciate that....Show more →
Let me make sure I understand your thinking. You always manually focus your 600mm lens so an appropriate test is to manually focus and pick the best of many images as determining a good lans. REALLY? Don't think so.
I am starting to think that my copy is bad and it is a stabilization problem. I will try to test with OSS off as even at 600mm it doesn't look good. It isn't actually OOF it isn't sharp anywhere!! Please pull the stick out of your a$$ and recognizing that the problem isn't my inability to focus in AFC mode. DUH. And Yes I am happy to learn I have the best 400-800 ever made!
Am I completely blind? In those latest photos the 600+1.4 definitely look sharper than the 400-800, especially as you move further out from centre. Unless you accidentally reversed the two images or descriptions of the 600 being on the left?
I believe the image descriptions are reversed. The post itself says opposite to them.
Conclusion wrote:
Am I completely blind? In those latest photos the 600+1.4 definitely look sharper than the 400-800, especially as you move further out from centre. Unless you accidentally reversed the two images or descriptions of the 600 being on the left?
billsnature wrote:
Here is the best of 6 shots from 600 with 1.4X vs a new random sample from 400-800 at 800. 400-800 on left and 600 w 1.4X on right. The 400 to 800 is still sharper. Even when scaled to match size. Notice the background sharpness showing greater DOF in 400-800mm in last image.
Possible explanations:
1) I have the best 400-800 ever made (Could be true. It is stellar)
2) f8 vs f9 is a big deal. Seems unlikely that if falls off a cliff like this but possibly
3) I have a bad copy of the 1.4X TC. Very possible, but looks OK on other lenses.
4) I have a bad copy of 600mm f6.3 (I will look harder at 300GM vs 600 to estimate)
5) 600mm f6.3 doesn't take TC well. This was true for 400mm f2.8 and could be true for this lens. The strange DOF difference could be a clue here
I am hoping others can confirm, but my results aren't way different than some YouTube reviews. Might look closer at longer distance....Show more →
Your 600+TC looks like my 400-800 at f/8 - basically unusable - so it's going back. We have tested 4 different copies of the 400-800 now and they were all very soft at f/8 and have to be used at f/10 to get sharp images. Seems pointless having an f/8 lens that can't be used at f/8.
I have to laugh at all the 'experts' who say it's diffraction - I used an A7R6 - but then the images are sharper at f/10 when 'diffraction' says they should be worse !
I'll be sticking with a 600 f/4 unless a bunch of folks can at least consistently reproduce the quality of the images I posted - which btw came from a Sony event where they had gear to try out - maybe they made specially sharp versions for their events !!
What software are you using to process the raw files? I found mine were bad when I used DxO PL10 because it supposedly needed a lens module which isn't available yet for the 600 f63. I ended up using my own software - based on the Apple decoder which seemed to work much better as can be seen from the previously posed images - it doesn't seem to need a special lens module. If you have a Mac you can try it to see if it makes any difference - it's available from the App Store beta test site at the link below.
billsnature wrote:
Here is the best of 6 shots from 600 with 1.4X vs a new random sample from 400-800 at 800. 400-800 on left and 600 w 1.4X on right. The 400 to 800 is still sharper. Even when scaled to match size. Notice the background sharpness showing greater DOF in 400-800mm in last image.
Possible explanations:
1) I have the best 400-800 ever made (Could be true. It is stellar)
2) f8 vs f9 is a big deal. Seems unlikely that if falls off a cliff like this but possibly
3) I have a bad copy of the 1.4X TC. Very possible, but looks OK on other lenses.
4) I have a bad copy of 600mm f6.3 (I will look harder at 300GM vs 600 to estimate)
5) 600mm f6.3 doesn't take TC well. This was true for 400mm f2.8 and could be true for this lens. The strange DOF difference could be a clue here
I am hoping others can confirm, but my results aren't way different than some YouTube reviews. Might look closer at longer distance....Show more →
What exposure settings are being used ? I didn't see that mentioned - were you using f/8 on the 400-800 ? If so them I am jealous as mine is really bad at f/8.
billsnature wrote:
Let me make sure I understand your thinking. You always manually focus your 600mm lens so an appropriate test is to manually focus and pick the best of many images as determining a good lans. REALLY? Don't think so.
I am starting to think that my copy is bad and it is a stabilization problem. I will try to test with OSS off as even at 600mm it doesn't look good. It isn't actually OOF it isn't sharp anywhere!! Please pull the stick out of your a$$ and recognizing that the problem isn't my inability to focus in AFC mode. DUH. And Yes I am happy to learn I have the best 400-800 ever made!...Show more →
No, you're not understanding correctly at all. I NEVER manually focus a 600mm lens. But when I'm testing a lens, I make sure the image is at least in focus so it can be compared.
Why on earth would you take a picture that's OOF, note in your post that it's OOF, but still try to draw a conclusion from that?
We all miss shots. That's completely fine. But don't post a missed shot and try to pass it off as a lens performance issue. State it as it is - a skill issue, a lack of caring, or an actual mechanical failure (if you can prove it).
All you had to do was either omit the failed picture from testing - or just spend the extra 3 seconds to get it in focus. Not that hard lol.
eriet30 wrote:
Is the foot the same on the 400 and 600 and then next question is it the same size attachment as the 200-600 foot attachment
to clarify...... where feet attach to the lens are they the same can I use my old 200-600 attachment on these
Yes the 400 and 600 feet are the same as eachother, no they aren't the same as the 200-600.
It is the same as the old 100-400, 300GM, 70-200/2.8 etc.
p.9 #11 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
aryanenzo wrote:
People need to stop testing on 3D subject. use a flat subject. AF-S to focus. It's not that hard.
But the animals I photograph are not 2D. Go out, shoot the lens for a couple of days, photograph the things you photograph normally, the lens either delivers or it doesn't. Mine arrives here in a couple of hours.
Sorry to hear the 400-800 owners have had poor lenses, I got lucky, very sharp wide open.
p.9 #12 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
hatch1921 wrote:
But the animals I photograph are not 2D. Go out, shoot the lens for a couple of days, photograph the things you photograph normally, the lens either delivers or it doesn't. Mine arrives here in a couple of hours.
Sorry to hear the 400-800 owners have had poor lenses, I got lucky, very sharp wide open.
Have a fun Friday all.
Hatch
If one is testing the lens's optical performance, testing it on a 3d subject introduces many variables.
I can tell you from experience that shooting a static bird, that the A1ii does not have a consistent focal plane even if it detects the eye of the bird. Once it "forgets" and re analyzes the view, finds the eye again and puts the green box on the eye, it can be a slightly different focal plane than the previous shot. Because depending on working distance, there's no one "right" focal plane to get the eye in focus since the eye is a 3d object.
p.9 #14 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
Billsnature please clarify your photo order, this doesn't make sense. The detail is better in the left photos in all cases but you state the 400-800 is better and specifically DOF for the last one, but in that last example the left photo is sharper even though it doesn't have as good of a DOF. Again, unless I'm confused this doesn't jive.
p.9 #15 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
Got mine, my impressions with 20 minutes of back yard photos. With the A1, eye focus is not perfect in the shadows & high ISO (compared to my faster glass) but with a couple of pumps shows up. 600 is a little too long for my small back yard. The result is that I love this thing, it puts the fun quotient at the next level. All photos with no noise reduction or crops, exposure lifted.
ILCE-1FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens65535 lens600mmf/6.31/2500s12800 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens65535 lens600mmf/6.31/2500s12800 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens65535 lens600mmf/6.31/2500s12800 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens65535 lens600mmf/6.31/2500s10000 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens65535 lens600mmf/6.31/2500s10000 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens65535 lens600mmf/6.31/2500s12800 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS lens65535 lens600mmf/6.31/2500s12800 ISO0.0 EV
p.9 #16 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
Jemini wrote:
Interesting. I was just testing Nikon vs Sony 400mm and I noticed the moment I put Sony lens (Both on Z8 using Megadap) it was showing a third stop lower. Please don't take it as a Nikon vs Sony issue . I noticed this when I had 300mm too. I kind of agree. The difference in actual picture seems to be less an a third stop. So no big deal.
I noticed something in EXIF data from couple of 400mm+TC files.
Exiftool.exe report these values for some files. Looks like below information is correct. So 400 is somewhere between f/4.5 and f/5 ?
p.9 #17 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
Pixel Perfect wrote:
As I said a few weeks ago, I was actually disappointed with the Sony announcements. Both primes should have been 400 f/4 and 600 f/5.6 IMO. I also believe Sony should release a 500 f/4.5 as hands down I would take that over a 600 f/6.3. 500mm on 50MP+ cameras is already good reach and you would get 700 f/6.3 and 1000 f/9 if needed. BAsed on the 400 f/4.5 I would say a 500 f/4.5 would tip thenscales at no ore than about 1.6kg and probably be $6K max.
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.
p.9 #18 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
aryanenzo wrote:
If one is testing the lens's optical performance, testing it on a 3d subject introduces many variables.
I can tell you from experience that shooting a static bird, that the A1ii does not have a consistent focal plane even if it detects the eye of the bird. Once it "forgets" and re analyzes the view, finds the eye again and puts the green box on the eye, it can be a slightly different focal plane than the previous shot. Because depending on working distance, there's no one "right" focal plane to get the eye in focus since the eye is a 3d object.
Everyone is different and to each their own. I have no interest in shooting charts, that's just me. I'd rather take the lens out and if it performs to my standards... it stays. If it sucks, it gets returned for a replacement, if that copy sucks, I get a refund. The 200-600 was an example in my situation. Shot for a few days, horrible results, exchanged it out, the 2nd copy I have is amazing. I photograph wildlife, mostly, if the lens can't perform outside of a lab environment, I have no use for it. Please understand the tone of this reply, not hostile Only saying I'm not into shooting charts, only real subjects I typically photograph.
I do hope all the new owners and potential new owners have a positive experience with the lens.
Mine still hasn't arrived... COME ON FEDEX!!! ( 30 seconds after I replied, it arrived)
p.9 #19 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
umut_h_toprak wrote:
Thank you for being so thorough with this, I am sure it is helping many people and the community.
I think 5 is the the most plausible out of the possibilities you listed. Over time as others test this we will have a more informed opinion on this.
As for 3, I do wonder if TC copy variability also exists because I am really really unhappy with my 200-600's TC performance whereas some others manage to make it work well somehow.
Congrats for having an excellent 400-800. Don't get rid of it :-)
I have 2 copies of the 1.4x TC....and 2 copies of the 2x TC. I've tested them all on my 400-800, 200-600, and 100-400mm GM (original with variable minimum aperture). I did find a slight difference in sharpness across the board between the 1.4x's, but a bigger difference between the 2x's. So, just like regular lenses, copy variation is real. I will also note that it does seem to matter what sensor you pair the lens and tc with. For my A1ii, the 2x is not worth using as you can get the same with the 1.4x and cropping. However, with the A9iii, the 2x does improve sharpness beyond just cropping the 1.4x.
p.9 #20 · 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.
Yes to Sony not making a 500 f4.5 or a 600 f5.6...well, not until they find a cheap way to make the larger glass elements needed. My guess is that Sony can make front glass at the 100mm size cheaply. Go much beyond that, and it gets very expensive....look at the 300 f2.8. Not much beyond and the price zoomed. I've seen plenty of comments online of people wishing and hoping for a 800 f6.3. Yeah, that's not gonna be cheap if they ever make it. I'd guess $9k. If you want a reasonable 800mm prime, a better guess is f8. As for the 400mm f4...Sony could do that, but then what do they do with the 600mm prime? f6? If they don't have the technology to do a cheap version of the 300mm GM glass, then the 600mm f5.6 would be a whole lot more than $3700.
Go out, shoot the lens for a couple of days, photograph the things you photograph normally, the lens either delivers or it doesn't. Mine arrives here in a couple of hours. 
