Coming soon? - Sony 200-600mm

StewartR

StewartR

Messages
11,513
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
Probably would have been better to just post this in the Sony thread, they've already mentioned the 200-600 in there.

It's not often I judge a lens on looks because, well, it doesn't matter AF, but that is one ugly looking thing
 
Dave Semmens said:
I think most lenses would look a bit strange with half the parts missing ;)
Click to expand...

Every white lens looks crack to me, only mentioned this other day. Actually it's close between white and silver for the ugliest. The new Fuji 200mm is also ugly as sin
 
Cagey75 said:
Every white lens looks crack to me, only mentioned this other day. Actually it's close between white and silver for the ugliest. The new Fuji 200mm is also ugly as sin
Click to expand...
Silver is definitely worst, I know because I owned one. I dislike white lenses too. I there is the whole argument of it being reflective but large black lenses from Nikon, Fuji etc aren't exactly melting are they?
 
nandbytes said:
Silver is definitely worst, I know because I owned one. I dislike white lenses too. I there is the whole argument of it being reflective but large black lenses from Nikon, Fuji etc aren't exactly melting are they?
Click to expand...

Older vintage silver lenses look much better, well some of them. It didn't so much look like cheap paint, more like actual metal. I can get the idea of silver lenses for the duotone bodies, but they still look cheap to me. That is supposed to be the main reason for the white but unless you shoot at the sun a lot don't see how they would heat so much. Been threatening to buy the Canon 70-200 myself for ages because it's perfect for what I want, but it's white . . Only thing that's stopped me. I want it for garden birds and it's not exactly stealthy is it.
 
Cagey75 said:
Older vintage silver lenses look much better, well some of them. It didn't so much look like cheap paint, more like actual metal. I can get the idea of silver lenses for the duotone bodies, but they still look cheap to me. That is supposed to be the main reason for the white but unless you shoot at the sun a lot don't see how they would heat so much. Been threatening to buy the Canon 70-200 myself for ages because it's perfect for what I want, but it's white . . Only thing that's stopped me. I want it for garden birds and it's not exactly stealthy is it.
Click to expand...
If you don't like white lenses, you can go for a Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm, both do f2.8 versions and Tamron also makes a 70-210 f4. All in black.
Alternatively, you can just put on a camo lens jacket.
 
ABTog said:
If you don't like white lenses, you can go for a Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm, both do f2.8 versions and Tamron also makes a 70-210 f4. All in black.
Alternatively, you can just put on a camo lens jacket.
Click to expand...

Camo!? :eek::puke::LOL:

Yeah I'd be completely fine with Sigma or Tammy, but the Canon 70-200 F4 L is cheaper than both by a fair amount, at least used [non IS, got IBIS on the body so no need] and possibly sharper at 200mm too.
 
I saw the photos of that one. There are some interesting points if that is definitely the prototype lens:

1) its a G lens rather than GM- likely to be priced between the 70-300 G and 100-400 GM
2) its got a good rotating tripod collar like the 100-400 rather than the removable one like the 70-200 f4
3) those lens strap lugs mean it going to weight quite a bit more than the 100-400
4) front element is going to be quite big probably 90-100mm (guess)
5) Im guessing the front element will extend as well but it already looks quite long compared to the 100-400.

If Sony do release this lens it could be quite useful for birders/amateurs. It could be quite a useful native long lens solution than Sony have at present without resorting to teleconverters. It definitely feels like its there to be competition for sigmas 150-600 and nikons 200-500 on other systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top