• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS (1 Viewer)

O.Reville1989

I started off with nothing and I've still got some
Hi all,
Surprised no one has started a thread for this lens yet, it seems to be a fantastic option for us wildlife photographers.
Here is a first attempt with the lens attached to the A73.
So far so good, next test is birds in flight.
 

Attachments

  • DSC00088.jpg
    DSC00088.jpg
    987 KB · Views: 423
  • DSC00116.jpg
    DSC00116.jpg
    665.3 KB · Views: 263

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
How's the weight balance, handling and pointability of this lens?
I can see the better dust proofing aspect of a non-extending zoom, but I had hoped this would be f5.6 on the long end .....
Do you have experience with the Tammy G2, Siggy C, or Niki 200-500 to compare it to?




Chosun :gh:
 

marcsantacurz

Well-known member
Yes, what Chosun said! I'd really like a comparison to the 150-600s or the SOny 100-400mm f/5.6.

The reviews I've seen have all been pretty positive on the 200-600. I'm sure you'll love it.

Marc
 

Vollmeise

Well-known member
How's the weight balance, handling and pointability of this lens?
I can see the better dust proofing aspect of a non-extending zoom, but I had hoped this would be f5.6 on the long end .....
Do you have experience with the Tammy G2, Siggy C, or Niki 200-500 to compare it to?

Well, I both own a Tammy 150-600 G2 (w Nikon D7500) and the brand new Sony SEL 200-600 in use with my A6400 as well.

The Sony beats the Tammy, which is not bad, in every aspect. Better Image quality, even /w 1.4x Extender. Perfect handling (zooming all the way in or out with a slight move of your thumb, no change of balance when zooming, 300 grams lighter, much faster and super silent AF). Much smoother bokeh (tammy shows lots of little rings in some situations).

And yes, the Sony does not open up to f/5,6 at its long end. But do you really think 1/3 f-stop does make any difference?

Cheers)
 

Attachments

  • F8A10379-6969-408F-B563-7E749DF102A0.jpeg
    F8A10379-6969-408F-B563-7E749DF102A0.jpeg
    583.3 KB · Views: 330
Last edited:

O.Reville1989

I started off with nothing and I've still got some
Well, I both own a Tammy 150-600 G2 (w Nikon D7500) and the brand new Sony SEL 200-600 in use with my A6400 as well.

The Sony beats the Tammy, which is not bad, in every aspect. Better Image quality, even /w 1.4x Extender. Perfect handling (zooming all the way in or out with a slight move of your thumb, no change of balance when zooming, 300 grams lighter, much faster and super silent AF). Much smoother bokeh (tammy shows lots of little rings in some situations).

And yes, the Sony does not open up to f/5,6 at its long end. But do you really think 1/3 f-stop does make any difference?

Cheers)


Beat me to it.

I used the 150-600 Sigma C and S with a 1D mk3 a few years back and found that to be far more unweildy than this combination.
The zoom action is fantastic and the lens feels very balanced. Coming from micro 4/3 it is a bit of a shock but when i think back to DLSR days it is a picnic in comparison.

Focusing on the A73 with this lens is fantastic and very reassured. I had no problem locking on to this dragonfly quickly and easily (see attached).

Yet to have a good session for BIF yet but the little testing I have done shows that in centre or wide focusing it can track really nicely using AF-C.

I also love the flexbility as shown by the landscape attached and the fire at night shows nice sharpness despite being handheld and a low shutter speed.

Overall I am very pleased so far and don't regret leaving Olympus.
 

Attachments

  • DSC00144.jpg
    DSC00144.jpg
    616.8 KB · Views: 151
  • DSC00156.jpg
    DSC00156.jpg
    928.6 KB · Views: 196
  • DSC00295.jpg
    DSC00295.jpg
    794.7 KB · Views: 218
  • DSC00365.jpg
    DSC00365.jpg
    592.9 KB · Views: 244

GYRob

Well-known member
A7R IV 200/600 1/3200 f6.3 ISO 800 at 230mm
 

Attachments

  • DSC03342 dive.jpg
    DSC03342 dive.jpg
    568 KB · Views: 310
Currently been using the A7R4 setup along with the Sony FE 200-600mm and loving it.

I think the weight of the lens is very manageable. I was in Muriwai Beach in NZ last week shooting gannets handheld for the greater part of 2 to 3 hrs.

Edit: The other thing I forgot to add - I am also pairing this set-up with a cotton carrier G3 harness as well

f6.3 > 1/800 > ISO 250
 

Attachments

  • DSC05089 (3).jpg
    DSC05089 (3).jpg
    200.3 KB · Views: 232
Last edited:

Spiekeries

Well-known member
Currently been using the A7R4 setup along with the Sony FE 200-600mm and loving it.

I think the weight of the lens is very manageable. I was in Muriwai Beach in NZ last week shooting gannets handheld for the greater part of 2 to 3 hrs.

Edit: The other thing I forgot to add - I am also pairing this set-up with a cotton carrier G3 harness as well

f6.3 > 1/800 > ISO 250

Beautiful picture.

How much did you crop it?

I plan to buy the same setup next year but in the meantime try to look at as many pictures from it as possible to see if it will do what I hope it will.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Well, I both own a Tammy 150-600 G2 (w Nikon D7500) and the brand new Sony SEL 200-600 in use with my A6400 as well.

The Sony beats the Tammy, which is not bad, in every aspect. Better Image quality, even /w 1.4x Extender. Perfect handling (zooming all the way in or out with a slight move of your thumb, no change of balance when zooming, 300 grams lighter, much faster and super silent AF). Much smoother bokeh (tammy shows lots of little rings in some situations).

And yes, the Sony does not open up to f/5,6 at its long end. But do you really think 1/3 f-stop does make any difference?

Cheers)

Please explain ? :cat:

Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 ...... 1990grams - 2010grams depending on mount.
Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS ...... 2115grams

Do you mean the ?
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm F5.6E ED VR ..... 2300grams



Chosun :gh:
 
Hey hey!

This one was not an agrressive crop at all. This colony had at least 1,000 individuals. There were no shortages of good shots that day. It was really hard trying to pair back to absolutely 50 of the best shots in my view.

Beautiful picture.

How much did you crop it?

I plan to buy the same setup next year but in the meantime try to look at as many pictures from it as possible to see if it will do what I hope it will.
 

Vollmeise

Well-known member
Please explain ? :cat:

Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 ...... 1990grams - 2010grams depending on mount.
Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS ...... 2115grams

Do you mean the ?
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm F5.6E ED VR ..... 2300grams



Chosun :gh:
Chosun, You're so right, and I was wrong.

I have no idea how IMHO the Sony was 300g lighter than the Tamron.
I still own both and just dind't place them on my kitchen scale for the sake of pure idleness. Shame on me.

Here some facts:

Tamron 150-600 G2, Nikon mount, w/ Collar, lens shade and lens cover: 2137g
Sony SEL 200-600, w/ replaced mount (arca-swiss, wimberley), lens shade and lens cover: 2453g

Cheers)
 

Attachments

  • 20848B0A-2EF5-4161-B650-DB57F0E2B2E0.jpeg
    20848B0A-2EF5-4161-B650-DB57F0E2B2E0.jpeg
    103.4 KB · Views: 83
  • 4207D2ED-EF0C-497E-B0AB-04F2C4E275C8.jpeg
    4207D2ED-EF0C-497E-B0AB-04F2C4E275C8.jpeg
    96.2 KB · Views: 95
Last edited:

Cliff

Active member
I have been considering changing from Canon 1D MK IV to Sony A7R for bird photography. I’m trying to choose between the Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS and the FE 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 OSS G Master Lens.

Many reviews favour the 200-600mm lens but my concern is the minimum focussing distance of 2.4m when some small birds may come very close to the hide. Has anybody tried this lens with extension tubes to obtain closer focussing, and if so how well does this work?
 

Zackiedawg

Well-known member
My 200-600mm is to arrive today, and I've had the 100-400mm for a while now. I am essentially considering them for two different purposes - the 200-600mm lens is for when I need pure reach, for distant, or very small birds in high treetops. Due to the close focus not being nearly as good, and the lens likely being a touch slower, I will switch to the 100-400mm when I'm shooting in situations where the reach isn't likely to be as needed, and when I will be shooting closer subjects and birds-in-flight. At least that's the plan. The 100-400mm is nearly macro level with its close focus performance at 400mm, and can even be paired with the 1.4x TC and not lose the minimum focus distance at all.
I've had the 1.4x TC for the reach when needed on the 100-400mm, but it's a bit too slow at F8 for dark forest situations requiring big hikes in ISO, and at very long distances, it loses a bit of IQ where I feel the 200-600mm lens will likely do a little better. Plus, I'd like to experiment with the 200-600mm lens plus the 1.4x TC, as that provides a ton of reach - though not sure if atmospherics and aperture will be impediments making it not worth pairing together.
I don't have any extension tubes to try on E-mount bodies unfortunately, otherwise I'd be happy to have experimented for you. I would probably consider the 100-400mm still the more versatile overall lens, with decent reach on the long end, ability to slap the 1.4x on for more reach, and much better coverage on the wide end along with excellent close focus ability - and from what I hear, still overall a faster focusing lens with the dual linear motors.
 

Cliff

Active member
Hi Justin,

Thank you for your reply which I found most useful. At the moment I cannot justify getting both lenses. I am swaying in the direction of the 100-400 plus the 1.4 converter being the more versatile option as you point out, but the reach of the 200-600 is very tempting.

Thanks again for your help.:t:
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Chosun, You're so right, and I was wrong.

I have no idea how IMHO the Sony was 300g lighter than the Tamron.
I still own both and just dind't place them on my kitchen scale for the sake of pure idleness. Shame on me.

Here some facts:

Tamron 150-600 G2, Nikon mount, w/ Collar, lens shade and lens cover: 2137g
Sony SEL 200-600, w/ replaced mount (arca-swiss, wimberley), lens shade and lens cover: 2453g

Cheers)

Thanks for the measurements Vollmeise :t:

Perhaps you reversed the result in your mind ? or maybe you were referring to the Nikon 200-500 originally in comparison to the weights since you also mentioned it was 1/3rd of a stop faster. Though given the weight you measured for the Sony perhaps that contest is closer than thought.

Interesting that you thought the Sony outdid the Tammy G2 for IQ though ...... :h?: :cat:




Chosun :gh:
 

Zackiedawg

Well-known member
I would tend to agree on the Sony vs Tamron based on my experiences. While I had a G1 Tamron, I always found it quite good especially for the price, and very usable at 600mm. But the Sony 200-600mm is clearly outresolving the Tamron by a fairly large measure on my APS-C bodies. It's not really very different through the shorter focal range, but getting over 400mm, the Sony starts to hold more detail, better contrast, and even wide open, stays quite consistent to 600mm...where the difference becomes fairly large. The G2 likely had some mild improvements over the G1, but the few times I shot a G2 it didn't seem that different from my G1 at 600mm. the Sony definitely looks sharper even without pixel-peeping.
I look forward to testing the 200-600mm with the 1.4x TC soon - I will keep my hopes down as I'd expect some IQ loss at those focal equivalents (we're talking 1,260mm equivalent!), but it might still be worth it for the reach to avoid cropping - the big question mark will be atmospheric conditions...it needs to be a clear, low humidity day to avoid distortions from heat and haze.
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
I would tend to agree on the Sony vs Tamron based on my experiences. While I had a G1 Tamron, I always found it quite good especially for the price, and very usable at 600mm. But the Sony 200-600mm is clearly outresolving the Tamron by a fairly large measure on my APS-C bodies. It's not really very different through the shorter focal range, but getting over 400mm, the Sony starts to hold more detail, better contrast, and even wide open, stays quite consistent to 600mm...where the difference becomes fairly large. The G2 likely had some mild improvements over the G1, but the few times I shot a G2 it didn't seem that different from my G1 at 600mm. the Sony definitely looks sharper even without pixel-peeping.
I look forward to testing the 200-600mm with the 1.4x TC soon - I will keep my hopes down as I'd expect some IQ loss at those focal equivalents (we're talking 1,260mm equivalent!), but it might still be worth it for the reach to avoid cropping - the big question mark will be atmospheric conditions...it needs to be a clear, low humidity day to avoid distortions from heat and haze.

Taking multiple images, there might still be one where the conditions were more stable than the others and the result therefore sharper.

Niels
 

Zackiedawg

Well-known member
Some first test shots of the 200-600mm lens with 1.4x teleconverter on my A6600 - I'm quite pleasantly surprised at how capable it is. The focus is not impacted at all - autofocus remains instant and accurate, even in lower light in forest. I was handholding at up to 1,260mm equivalent reach, with shutter speeds as low as 1/500, yet still getting quite crisp results, so the stabilization does the job. Here are a few shots:

A red-shouldered hawk at 1,003mm equivalent framing - from about 60 feet:
https://pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/170263988/original

A common yellowthroat at 855mm equivalent, from about 20 feet:
https://pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/170263989/original

A pileated woodpecker on the shadow side of a tree in a cypress forest - fairly dim light conditions, handheld at 1,260mm equivalent, and 1,000 ISO:
https://pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/170263980/original

A gulf fritillary butterfly taken from about 10-12 feet away, at the full 1,260mm equivalent handheld:
https://pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/170263990/original
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top