The Amazing Sony A7 / A9 / Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

Messages
7,618
Edit My Images
No
Heart set on the f2.8?
Out of the two, yea. f2.8 400mm.

400mm is nice even for f1 as well.

600mm f4 would be fine also for f1 as f1 is shot at broad daylight majority of the time. even the new 200-600 would be great for motosport really.

Its when the light goes out and the action is still fast, f4 about minimum if u can get away with it but ideally f2.8.
 
Messages
13,939
Edit My Images
No
Messages
5,086
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Now just to decide if I should pre-order or wait for grey pricing. Imagine these will be in big demand and they might be hard to get the hold of for a while.,
It depends how many they manage to produce before release. If they are anything like Nikon and the 500mm PF then it will be a very long wait. Am I right in thinking you can cancel a pre-order before its shipped? Personnally if I was interested in it I would like to actual try it or get a very good review thats quite honest. A 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G lens for £1799 at release sounds like there will be a corner cut somewhere. I like that sony have produced something interesting.
 
Messages
5,086
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
what article? does it accept a tc? even a 1.4tc would be awsome lol
This article has the Sony press release:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/48422...0mm-f5-6-6-3-g-oss-and-600mm-f4-gm-oss-lenses

Personally I don’t understand the fascination with using teleconverters on a f5.6-f8 lens. With a 1.4 TC it would be 840mm at f9 and 2x TC would be 1200mm at f13. Supposedly with outstanding image quality and AF performance. Thats a lot of light lost reducing shutter speed. I would like to see real world use as I don’t believe it until I see it having used teleconverters myself for several years. There is a reason why they are still producing £10-12k f2.8 and f4 lenses. Teleconverter compatibility just seems to be the new marketing angle it must have to make it sell.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
5,629
Edit My Images
Yes
As a comparison:

Nikon 200-400 f4 = 124 x 365.5mm

Sony 200-600 = 111.5 x 318mm

That’s pretty much me out. I like the price, internal focusing but there is no way I could go back to a lens nearly the same size as the 200-400.
I agree for the size alone think I may stick with my 100-400mm.
But then I think I could possibly replace 100-400mm with 70-200mm f4 and the 200-600.
 
Messages
5,086
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Why is it so important? I would like to see actual evidence on image quality or see AF performance. Every teleconverter Ive ever used has affected image quality and AF speed/acquisition to some degree (faster f2.8 lenses less so). Often with wildlife I’m out early morning/late evening. Sometimes I’m struggling to get get a 1/250 or 1/300 shutter speed with ISO3200 or ISO6400 at f5.6. Throw in a 2x TC that’s now f11 (f13 with the 200-600) and either speed shutter has dropped to 1/60 or ISO has shot up to 128000-256000 way beyond anything useable in low light (early morning/late evening). Couple that with the extra focal length causing camera shake and it’s a recipe for disaster. Anything but very bright light you would likely struggle, and the simple fact is I won’t be out in very bright light because there isn’t any atmosphere to the light.
 
Messages
3,649
Name
Laurence
Edit My Images
Yes
The 200-600 gives me the same puzzle to solve as does the Sigma 150-600 in relation to my 100-400GM with the 1.4xTC. Does the extra 40mm reach and a two thirds stop of light measure up against the resolving power of the GM zoom particularly when on a high resolution body like the A7Riii?
Obviously being a native lens the AF and tracking would be superior to a third party lens but as pointed out here the size and weight of the 100-400GM is excellent for travel.
I'll be very interested to see the comparison reviews from the pixel peepers on the review sites and Youtube. I'm absolutely certain that Mr. and Mrs. Northrup will do a side by side "unmissable" video:LOL:
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,086
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
The 200-600 gives me the same puzzle to solve as does the Sigma 150-600 in relation to my 100-400GM with the 1.4xTC. Does the extra 40mm reach and a two thirds stop of light measure up against the resolving power of the GM zoom particularly when on a high resolution body like the A7Riii?
Obviously being a native lens the AF and tracking would be superior to a third party lens but as pointed out here the size and weight of the 100-400GM is excellent for travel.
I'll be very interested to see the comparison reviews from the pixel peepers on the review sites and Youtube. I'm absolutely certain that Mr. and Mrs. Northrup will do a side by side "unmissable" video:LOL:
40mm is practically nothing when we are talking between 560mm to 600mm. You would think the Sony 200-600 would outperform the 100-400 plus 1.4 TC. To be honest it’s worth comparing use of teleconverter versus cropping.
 
Messages
3,649
Name
Laurence
Edit My Images
Yes
40mm is practically nothing when we are talking between 560mm to 600mm. You would think the Sony 200-600 would outperform the 100-400 plus 1.4 TC. To be honest it’s worth comparing use of teleconverter versus cropping.
I'm really not sure about the about the 200-600G outperforming the GM lens with a 1.4 tc. The quality of a GM is supposed to be worth the cost premium, I don't find any discernable IQ degradation between using the 100-400 bare or with the 1.4x TC on the A7Riii.
 
Messages
5,086
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm really not sure about the about the 200-600G outperforming the GM lens with a 1.4 tc. The quality of a GM is supposed to be worth the cost premium, I don't find any discernable IQ degradation between using the 100-400 bare or with the 1.4x TC on the A7Riii.
To be honest if your current setup is doing what you need to it doesn’t matter what else there is out there. The whole GM-G confuses me as you can’t compare. The likelihood is the difference may be small and probably not seen by many (probably including me).
 
Messages
5,086
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
I agree for the size alone think I may stick with my 100-400mm.
But then I think I could possibly replace 100-400mm with 70-200mm f4 and the 200-600.
I guess it all depends if you need the extra 200mm. For size and weight comparison 70-200 (850g) and 200-600 (2100g without tripod foot) would nearly be 1400g more than the 100-400 but you would get an extra 200mm. It’s all swings and roundabouts.
 
Messages
7,618
Edit My Images
No
Why is it so important? I would like to see actual evidence on image quality or see AF performance. Every teleconverter Ive ever used has affected image quality and AF speed/acquisition to some degree (faster f2.8 lenses less so). Often with wildlife I’m out early morning/late evening. Sometimes I’m struggling to get get a 1/250 or 1/300 shutter speed with ISO3200 or ISO6400 at f5.6. Throw in a 2x TC that’s now f11 (f13 with the 200-600) and either speed shutter has dropped to 1/60 or ISO has shot up to 128000-256000 way beyond anything useable in low light (early morning/late evening). Couple that with the extra focal length causing camera shake and it’s a recipe for disaster. Anything but very bright light you would likely struggle, and the simple fact is I won’t be out in very bright light because there isn’t any atmosphere to the light.
Good to have in your arsenal :)

Also, why is the 70-200 f4 not compatible with the TC?
 
Top