Industry News: Nikon plans to have 50+ Z-mount lenses by 2025

[Deleted member 381342]

When Sony and others have a faster 200-600 lens under 2000 with great optical quality and TC compatibility it didnt seem Canon was making a huge leap with the 100-500.

Sonys is a 100-400 like Nikon. The consumer 200-600 is not a comparable lens. There is more to a lens than its f-stop and focal range. That Sony is also equivalent to a 300mm when at 600mm and focusing on something close.

 

[tonblom]

Sonys is a 100-400 like Nikon. The consumer 200-600 is not a comparable lens. There is more to a lens than its f-stop and focal range. That Sony is also equivalent to a 300mm when at 600mm and focusing on something close.

I don't know the Sony, so nothing negative about that lens, but the Canon keeps focus when I zoom in, which is important for me. At 600mm I cannot find the object and I also don't see why I would need a close focussing distance for 600mm?

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I don't know the Sony, so nothing negative about that lens, but the Canon keeps focus when I zoom in, which is important for me. At 600mm I cannot find the object and I also don't see why I would need a close focussing distance for 600mm?

You want a small song bird to fill your frame and it should do at 600mm when the Sony 200-600 is at 600mm you will get the field of view of a 300mm when you are close to a small song bird. Basically you have a more pixels on the bird with a 100-400GM and even more with the RF 100-500. If your subject is big and distant then the 200-600 performs correctly. There are always compromises to lens designs.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

When Sony and others have a faster 200-600 lens under 2000 with great optical quality and TC compatibility it didnt seem Canon was making a huge leap with the 100-500.

Here's a repost of post I did about a year ago, but it makes sense once again:

I just don’t get why people still compare the RF 100-500mm to Sonys 200-600mm lense. Those lenses feature completely different designs for different purposes.

RF 100-500mm - 200-600mm
77mm Filter - 96mm filter thread
20 cm - 32 cm
1.45 kg - 2.1 kg
0,5 m - 2,4 m Minimum focus

If you look at the purposes intended, it is even clearer:

• RF: possible walk-around lense
• Sony: most „sit and wait“ lense… (birders e.g.)

• RF: landscapes, sports, wildlife (77mm thread allows regular filters…)
• Sony: almost exclusively wild-life

The narrower end and the exceptional minimum focus makes the RF 100-500mm a great sport lense for example for soccer, handball (huge in Germany) while the 200-600mm isn’t suitable here.

In addition, the RF 100-500mm is an L lense, the 200-600mm is not a G Master lense, a fact which a lot of users complained on the sonyalpharumors site when the lense was released. Since the 200-600mm features weather sealing and still is not a GMaster lense, it likely says that the image quality is not the best possible. (while it is still good IQ)

The Sony 200-600mm is a great option for wildlife photography. And yes, it is an offering Canon does not have. But Canon has a different, much more versatile and way more handy option. Comparing those lense just doesn’t make sense.

I don´t wanna trash the Sony 200-600mm lense here, because it great lense for what it is. But I’m sick and tired of people bitching and moaning about the fact, that the 200-600mm is one third of stop faster between 472-500mm and people literally comparing apples and melons. Furthermore, they only compare a single tiny fact…

 

[neurorx]

Here's a repost of post I did about a year ago, but it makes sense once again:

I just don’t get why people still compare the RF 100-500mm to Sonys 200-600mm lense. Those lenses feature completely different designs for different purposes.

RF 100-500mm - 200-600mm
77mm Filter - 96mm filter thread
20 cm - 32 cm
1.45 kg - 2.1 kg
0,5 m - 2,4 m Minimum focus

If you look at the purposes intended, it is even clearer:

• RF: possible walk-around lense
• Sony: most „sit and wait“ lense… (birders e.g.)

• RF: landscapes, sports, wildlife (77mm thread allows regular filters…)
• Sony: almost exclusively wild-life

The narrower end and the exceptional minimum focus makes the RF 100-500mm a great sport lense for example for soccer, handball (huge in Germany) while the 200-600mm isn’t suitable here.

In addition, the RF 100-500mm is an L lense, the 200-600mm is not a G Master lense, a fact which a lot of users complained on the sonyalpharumors site when the lense was released. Since the 200-600mm features weather sealing and still is not a GMaster lense, it likely says that the image quality is not the best possible. (while it is still good IQ)

The Sony 200-600mm is a great option for wildlife photography. And yes, it is an offering Canon does not have. But Canon has a different, much more versatile and way more handy option. Comparing those lense just doesn’t make sense.

I don´t wanna trash the Sony 200-600mm lense here, because it great lense for what it is. But I’m sick and tired of people bitching and moaning about the fact, that the 200-600mm is one third of stop faster between 472-500mm and people literally comparing apples and melons. Furthermore, they only compare a single tiny fact…

Wow, what a response. I just don't think the 100-500 was a big improvement of a lens over my 100-400 II. 200-600 at least gives me some additional reach at a reasonable price point, which was my point.....but wow, what a reply.