-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter O.Reville1989
- Start date
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
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:
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
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
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
Last edited:
O.Reville1989
I started off with nothing and I've still got some
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
Binoseeker
Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.
Has anyone tried this lens with Sony A7R2 against BIF?
iamxcanvas
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
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
Last edited:
Spiekeries
Well-known member
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
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:
iamxcanvas
Member
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.
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.
Vollmeise
Well-known member
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
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?
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.
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:
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
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.
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
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:
