Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas. A E
- Aug 16, 2012
optyczne.pl have reported that at longer focal lengths, it has to be stopped down to be sharp, as I have posted previously.I have to disagree about a G lens not expected to be as sharp as a GM lens. Obviously no one really knows at this point exactly how sharp the 200-600 will be except the few who have tested it, but the MTF shows it should be nearly as sharp as the 100-400 GM which is sharper than the Canon 100-400 II. The Sony 24-105 G is probably the sharpest 24-105 on the market (yes, sharper than the Sigma 24-105 A). One of the reviewers stated the focus speed of the 200-600 was nearly as fast as the 600 f/4, and it's also nearly completely weather sealed and the only lens in this category that is internally zooming. Sony mentioned in an interview that most of the cost savings and G designation came from not using magnesium-alloy in the body or the new XD linear autofocus. It also lacks a super ED lens element.
I do agree the $2000 price tag was a bit of a surprise. Sony could likely list the lens for much more and still sell a ton of them.
"Based on the first impressions of use, we can very much pretend about the quality of imaging.In our opinion, up to half of the focal length ranges can be successfully used with the full relative aperture. The longest end, however, requires stopping the aperture (eg up to f / 8), which will result in sharper pictures. This was especially noticeable when photographing wildly distant wild animals. Sometimes both longitudinal and transversal chromatic aberration can be noticed.Similarly, the situation looks like vignetting at the maximum relative aperture."
Now that doesn't seem too encouraging does it?