What about that EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS from Canon?

AlanF

Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas. A E
Aug 16, 2012
5,258
2,285
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.
optyczne.pl have reported that at longer focal lengths, it has to be stopped down to be sharp, as I have posted previously.
https://www.optyczne.pl/706.1-artykuł-Nowe_superteleobiektywy_Sony_w_naszych_rękach.html
"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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Talys

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
467
438
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.
I guess you must be kidding...
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,055
322
Vancouver, BC
optyczne.pl have reported that at longer focal lengths, it has to be stopped down to be sharp, as I have posted previously.
https://www.optyczne.pl/706.1-artykuł-Nowe_superteleobiektywy_Sony_w_naszych_rękach.html
"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?
That sounds like a horrible exercise in frustration to get a pile of terrible images.

If the half of focal lengths is near the 200, it's a pile of crap. If the 400-600 range doesn't perform unless you stop it down, what is the point? Just buy a 100-400 and throw on a 1.4, right?
 

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
350
198
I believe its usual way sony and zeiss lenses. They need stopped down to be super sharp like they are. It makes them look good on dxomark tests.
oh woah RF 50mm got barely more score on their test than ef 50mm 1,8 stm :p Hard to trust revievs and tests ,everybody claims different.
Bit stupid compare it to lenses what arent 1,2 though.
My 40mm pancake is as sharp what RF50 , i guess i made good deal saved 2000E . with tripod its good landscape lens :)
 
Last edited:

Tom W

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2012
185
117
But it seems the :love:100-400 L IS II :love:has one of the very best IS available, I quite often use mine at 400 mm and "crazy" shutter speeds, like 1/30th, without any issues! So, F.8 with the 1,4 X extender is not a problem.
I would not even think of using a Sigma instead!
The 100-400 II is a very good lens. But the problem comes with the smaller aperture. 400 f/5.6 with the 1.4X = 560 at f/8. Versus, 600 at f/6.3, I'll take that 2/3 of a stop more light.

I know that the IS on the 100-400 is exceptionally good too, but 1/30 second isn't suitable for moving subjects. The IS can deal with my shaking/movements, but not that of the bird or critter that I'm photographing.

That alone is why I'm using my Siggy. It's not a better lens, sharpness wise, but it invites more light at 600 than the 100-400 with teleconverter and I like that.

If it weren't so doggone heavy, I'd be using my 500 f/4 out there. It is really an excellent lens, but kind of bulky for walking around.
 

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D + 100-400mm mkii
Feb 7, 2019
111
81
UK
I think it totally depends on how far along in development, if at all, this lens is wether it’ll ever be produced or not. I think if this lens was to be sold it’d sell incredibly well with the new 90D for quite a few years. Personally I don’t think canon will abandon the DSLR for at least half a decade so there’s every reason to release this lens - if it’s design is ready. Canon’s customers have invested far too much in their DSLRs and EF glass for them to just stop producing EF lenses the minute they start making mirrorless cameras. So I think there’s still EF lenses to come. I’d buy this one for sure.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,055
322
Vancouver, BC
I think they both released their first 600/4 lenses in 1988.

It wasn't yet called "Sony", though. It was called "Minolta".
That's like saying Lenovo built the first IBM PC, just because the bought the PC division off of IBM :)

It only counts as a Sony lens if it was built under Sony leadership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Neutral

EOS RP
Oct 19, 2012
333
6
That sounds like a horrible exercise in frustration to get a pile of terrible images.

If the half of focal lengths is near the 200, it's a pile of crap. If the 400-600 range doesn't perform unless you stop it down, what is the point? Just buy a 100-400 and throw on a 1.4, right?
As per already available MTF charts Sony 200-600 performance at 600mm is on par with Canon 100-400 L II at 400mm and very close to Sony 100-400GM at 400mm and noticeably better than Canon 100-400 with 1.4x extender.
So 200-600 most probably would be better option than any (sony or canon) 100-400 with 1.4x extender just per optical perfomace.
Also Sony 200-600 AF speed and precision probably would be better than for Canon 100-400 with 1.4x extender, not sure about Sony 100-400GM which has superfast AF system found only on latest GM lenses.
But what is really important for image quality is 2/3 stops more light for f6.3 compared to f8.
If for 600mm at f6.3 if you shoot at ISO6400 and get acceptable images than you need ISO close to 10000 for the same using 100-400 with 1.4x extender so resulting image quality wil be noticably worse. At high ISO range changes in captured amount of light have much higher impact on resulting image quality compared to low ISO range.
Also overall system resolution for lens+camera_sensor is reverse function of ISO. The higher ISO the less is overall system resulution due to the added noise. So even if lens optical resolution is equal system resulting image would have higher resulution for system using lower ISO just due to the better signal to noise ratio.
From what i see on forum not too many members understands this basic fundamental thing, just could count few members who has this understanding.
At the end of the day what is matters is overall system performace.
I think that Sony 200-600 might have very big success.
I am sure that similar Canon lens with the same or better performace than Sony one would be also very popular among Canon users.
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas. A E
Aug 16, 2012
5,258
2,285
As per already available MTF charts Sony 200-600 performance at 600mm is on par with Canon 100-400 L II at 400mm and very close to Sony 100-400GM at 400mm and noticeably better than Canon 100-400 with 1.4x extender.
So 200-600 most probably would be better option than any (sony or canon) 100-400 with 1.4x extender just per optical perfomace.
Also Sony 200-600 AF speed and precision probably would be better than for Canon 100-400 with 1.4x extender, not sure about Sony 100-400GM which has superfast AF system found only on latest GM lenses.
But what is really important for image quality is 2/3 stops more light for f6.3 compared to f8.
If for 600mm at f6.3 if you shoot at ISO6400 and get acceptable images than you need ISO close to 10000 for the same using 100-400 with 1.4x extender so resulting image quality wil be noticably worse. At high ISO range changes in captured amount of light have much higher impact on resulting image quality compared to low ISO range.
Also overall system resolution for lens+camera_sensor is reverse function of ISO. The higher ISO the less is overall system resulution due to the added noise. So even if lens optical resolution is equal system resulting image would have higher resulution for system using lower ISO just due to the better signal to noise ratio.
From what i see on forum not too many members understands this basic fundamental thing, just could count few members who has this understanding.
At the end of the day what is matters is overall system performace.
I think that Sony 200-600 might have very big success.
I am sure that similar Canon lens with the same or better performace than Sony one would be also very popular among Canon users.
It's rather patronising claiming not too many members of CR understand basic fundamentals and only a few of us do. There are many reasonably sophisticated users of this site, including those who know that the MTF values you cite at the beginning of the post are not the ones found in practice but are idealised computer generated values that are not even corrected for diffraction.
And, if you think that f/6.3 has a 2/3rds stop advantage over f/8, then you should worry that the Sony has to be stopped down to f/8 to be sharp (as reported a few of posts above).
 

Neutral

EOS RP
Oct 19, 2012
333
6
It's rather patronising claiming not too many members of CR understand basic fundamentals and only a few of us do. There are many reasonably sophisticated users of this site, including those who know that the MTF values you cite at the beginning of the post are not the ones found in practice but are idealised computer generated values that are not even corrected for diffraction.
And, if you think that f/6.3 has a 2/3rds stop advantage over f/8, then you should worry that the Sony has to be stopped down to f/8 to be sharp.
I understand that there are number of people understanding fundamental basics but a lot of posts here are written by people which do not belong to this camp and they post for the sake of post just repeating some myphs from internet or some others opinions. Probaly ones which have deep knowledge just busy with doing photography ))
Also it seems that you missed important point which was starting point of my post - as per MTF Sony 200-600 is as sharp at 600mm as Canon 100-400 L II at 400mm. So you are not happy with Canon 100-400L II at 400mm?
Most of the lens get a bit sharper stopped down.
The same applies to Canon 100-400. But again as per MTF difference is very small - someting from 92% to 97% contrast improvement for 30lp/mm
Similar is for Sony 200-600 - just similar minor improvement stopped down from f6.3 to f8, it is just sharp (above 90% in MTF for 30lp/m ) starting from f6.3.
Lets's wait some time and see test results and reviews from production batch samples later, especially from lensrentals, sure they will have a lot of them for rent and will have interesing review. As for now we could only see some test results from some people and they are positive. I just found that Ken Rockwell already has this lens review on his site https://kenrockwell.com/sony/lenses/200-600mm.htm
May be he could share here his first experience with that lens i understand that is member of CR, seen his posts here.
The only issue (Ken mentioned that ) could be is that this lens will be produced in China - will this affect QC or not this yet to be seen.
As I mentioned similar lens for Canon users could be very popular, I always wished I have someting similar for my 1DXm2, was not very happy with my 100-400 +1.4x extender for reasons explained in my previous post.
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas. A E
Aug 16, 2012
5,258
2,285
I understand that there are number of people understanding fundamental basics but a lot of posts here are written by people which do not belong to this camp and they post for the sake of post just repeating some myphs from internet or some others opinions. Probaly ones which have deep knowledge just busy with doing photography ))
Also it seems that you missed important point which was starting point of my post - as per MTF Sony 200-600 is as sharp at 600mm as Canon 100-400 L II at 400mm. So you are not happy with Canon 100-400L II at 400mm?
Most of the lens get a bit sharper stopped down.
The same applies to Canon 100-400. But again as per MTF difference is very small - someting from 92% to 97% contrast improvement for 30lp/mm
Similar is for Sony 200-600 - just similar minor improvement stopped down from f6.3 to f8, it is just sharp (above 90% in MTF for 30lp/m ) starting from f6.3.
Lets's wait some time and see test results and reviews from production batch samples later, especially from lensrentals, sure they will have a lot of them for rent and will have interesing review. As for now we could only see some test results from some people and they are positive. I just found that Ken Rockwell already has this lens review on his site https://kenrockwell.com/sony/lenses/200-600mm.htm
May be he could share here his first experience with that lens i understand that is member of CR, seen his posts here.
The only issue (Ken mentioned that ) could be is that this lens will be produced in China - will this affect QC or not this yet to be seen.
As I mentioned similar lens for Canon users could be very popular, I always wished I have someting similar for my 1DXm2, was not very happy with my 100-400 +1.4x extender for reasons explained in my previous post.
How do you know the Sony at 600mm (f/6.3) is as sharp as the Canon 100-400mm at 400mm (f/5.6)?
There is no published comparison side by side. As I wrote above, the MTFs published by Sony are not real in practice ones but arbitrary theoretical curves that do not take into account diffraction or real life features and are just based on Sony software and are not validated by CIPA or anyone. That is not evidence to compare two lenses from different manufacturers products. Also direct observation from the Optyczne review is that there is a real observable increase in sharpness on stopping down.
As for all lenses improving on stopping down, I have had 3 copies of the 100-400mm II and all have been sharpest wide open, and decent testing sites find no significant improvements in their MTF tests, and they are about the same at f5.6 and f/8.
https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1
You are accusing members of CR posting myths from the internet, but where is your real evidence?
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas. A E
Aug 16, 2012
5,258
2,285
Sigma is a rare example of publishing theoretical MTFs ("Geometrical") and real ones. Here is a pair from their flagship 500mm f/4. The theoretical ("Geometrical") chart is stellar, like many you see for top superteles. in practice, you get closer to the left hand one. The Sony MTFs are geometrical.

185109
185110
.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,103
522
That's like saying Lenovo built the first IBM PC, just because the bought the PC division off of IBM :)
No, it's like saying that Lenovo has the expertise to build IBM PC.

I, for one, welcome not losing Minolta's expertise in building cameras and lenses.
 

criscokkat

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2017
209
188
Madison, WI
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.
I am quite sure this is to pull all the prosumer sports/birder shooters into the A9 (and presumably a9II) camp. They might even bring in some pros with that, but the pros will come if it's a good combo at a higher price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadisonMike

criscokkat

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2017
209
188
Madison, WI
I'm curious to see what sort of RF specific teleconverters could do. Is there any advantages with the shorter registration distance when it comes to teleconverters? I know people have been asking about an rf-to-ef teleconverter, but what about just native RF teleconverters?
 

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
350
198
rockwell says its sharp ,we will see. Maybe this forces canon do something equal or better :)
Or they may need improve their f2,8 and F4 400mm first ,before there is enough gap for sharper 100-400 or 400mm 5,6 segmentation..
I hope they sacrifice 400mm line some time and make new 400mm 5,6 what is sharper what 400mm 2,8 and that inbuild 1,4x :).
Canon can make better 2,8 and 4 DO when dust settles.
 
Last edited:

Neutral

EOS RP
Oct 19, 2012
333
6
How do you know the Sony at 600mm (f/6.3) is as sharp as the Canon 100-400mm at 400mm (f/5.6)?
There is no published comparison side by side. As I wrote above, the MTFs published by Sony are not real in practice ones but arbitrary theoretical curves that do not take into account diffraction or real life features and are just based on Sony software and are not validated by CIPA or anyone. That is not evidence to compare two lenses from different manufacturers products. Also direct observation from the Optyczne review is that there is a real observable increase in sharpness on stopping down.
As for all lenses improving on stopping down, I have had 3 copies of the 100-400mm II and all have been sharpest wide open, and decent testing sites find no significant improvements in their MTF tests, and they are about the same at f5.6 and f/8.
https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1
You are accusing members of CR posting myths from the internet, but where is your real evidence?
I have both 100-400 from Canon and Sony and I was using Canon 100-400 with metabones adapter on Sony a7r2 and then on a7r3 and then I bought sony 100-400GM and after I that never used Canon one on Sony body, only on 1DXm2.
I am more pleased with Sony 100-400 GM than with Canon 100-400 and on a9 it is just perfect.
I am not going to spend my time prove anything to anyone, I just do not have much of it, I just tell what I see myself. You can take it or ignore, it is up to you.
I take my own choices you take yours. All take their own choices, i just have both systems and can see myself and share what I see. You can just ignore that
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadisonMike

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
467
438
I have both 100-400 from Canon and Sony and I was using Canon 100-400 with metabones adapter on Sony a7r2 and then on a7r3 and then I bought sony 100-400GM and after I that never used Canon one on Sony body, only on 1DXm2.
I am more pleased with Sony 100-400 GM than with Canon 100-400 and on a9 it is just perfect.
I am not going to spend my time prove anything to anyone, I just do not have much of it, I just tell what I see myself. You can take it or ignore, it is up to you.
I take my own choices you take yours. All take their own choices, i just have both systems and can see myself and share what I see. You can just ignore that
I have just chosen to ignore, sorry!
 

AlanF

Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas. A E
Aug 16, 2012
5,258
2,285
I have both 100-400 from Canon and Sony and I was using Canon 100-400 with metabones adapter on Sony a7r2 and then on a7r3 and then I bought sony 100-400GM and after I that never used Canon one on Sony body, only on 1DXm2.
I am more pleased with Sony 100-400 GM than with Canon 100-400 and on a9 it is just perfect.
I am not going to spend my time prove anything to anyone, I just do not have much of it, I just tell what I see myself. You can take it or ignore, it is up to you.
I take my own choices you take yours. All take their own choices, i just have both systems and can see myself and share what I see. You can just ignore that
We haven't been discussing the relative merits of the Sony vs Canon 100-400mm lenses. The discussion is about the the new Sony 200-600mm. If you do purchase the Sony 200-600mm then we would be interested to hear from you your first hand experience with the lens and its performance vs the Sony and Canon 100-400mm lenses.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,025
1,487
Canada
We haven't been discussing the relative merits of the Sony vs Canon 100-400mm lenses. The discussion is about the the new Sony 200-600mm. If you do purchase the Sony 200-600mm then we would be interested to hear from you your first hand experience with the lens and its performance vs the Sony and Canon 100-400mm lenses.
Yes..... CR discussions never go off topic :)

Right now the X to 500 or 600mm zoom lens is a busy field...
Tamron 150-600
Tamron 150-600 G2
Sigma 150-600
Sigma 150-600 Sport
Nikon 200-500
Sony 200-600

Canon is missing! All these lenses seem to be selling well, to my mind it makes sense for Canon to jump into the fray. I can see either a 500F5.6, or a 600F6.3, but I think a 600F5.6 on the long end is extremely unlikely. They may not necessarily be L lenses if Canon decides to compete on price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974