Sony to announce FE 16mm f/1.8 and FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 in February

[Swissbob]

And much heavier, with a front element of 112mm, even longer and far more expensive.

1k or 2k more perhaps and 1lbs more.
The RF200-800 would be much better, If the Zoom throw would be shorter.

 

[AlanF]

1k or 2k more perhaps and 1lbs more.
The RF200-800 would be much better, If the Zoom throw would be shorter.

The estimated weight for the 400-800 was about 2.5kg. Another lb would bring it up to 3kg. My 200-800 at close to 2kg is my limit for a walk-around lens, and I prefer to carry my 100-500. I feel that a 3kg zoom won't have much mass market appeal, and that will put up the price. To put in perspective, a 400-1000mm would have a larger front element than the RF 100-300mm f/2.8, which costs 5 figures.

 

[AlanF]

Will cost €2999 and take a 105mm filter. Looks like a full 800mm f/8, and heavy.

 

[P-visie]

The full specifications of these lenses are now on Digital Camera Info.

Google translated link.

 

[Swissbob]

The full specifications of these lenses are now on Digital Camera Info.

Google translated link.

The new Sigma smokes it.

 

[P-visie]

Petapixel has a “review” of the 400-800mm with a photos and a comparison with the Sony 200-600mm (which has shortcomings which the new lens addresses ). The 400-800mm images get softer beyond 600mm.

See: https://petapixel.com/2025/02/26/sony-400-800mm-f-6-3-8-g-review-a-wildlife-photography-champion/

 

[AlanF]

I was looking for a comparison of the sharpness of the RF 200-800mm vs Sony 400-800mm at 800mm and came across this in a short youtube by Tony N. He describes it as being a close tie, but considering that the Sony is on an A1 that has more Mpx than the R5 and doesn't have an AA-filter, the 200-800mm is probably sharper. Here the screenshot from:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

with the Canon on the left and Sony on the right.