The missing link: 2000$ 200-600mm lens for Sony bodies

[xps]

Press Release: Sony Announces New FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS Super-telephoto Zoom Lens | sonyalpharumors

USA Preorders: Sony 200-600mm FE at Amazon, BHphoto, FocusCamera, BuyDig and Adorama. Sony 600mm FE GM at Amazon, BHphoto, FocusCamera, BuyDig and Adorama. EU Preorders: Sony 200-600mm FE at Calumet DE. WexUK. ParkCameras. Calumet NL. Cameratools NL. Sony 600mm FE GM at Calumet DE. WexUK...

www.sonyalpharumors.com

• versatile tele-zoom range from 200mm telephoto to 600mm super-telephoto
• Compatible with Sony’s E-mount 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters, extending the reach to a maximum of 840mm at F9 or 1200mm at F13 with outstanding image quality and AF performance
• Built-in optical stabilization with three different mode settings, enabling images that are sharp and in-focus at extended super-telephoto focal lengths

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS SEL200600G Specifications

www.imaging-resource.com

Lens Specifications
Name	Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS SEL200600G
Image Circle	35mm (Full-frame E-Mount)
Type	Telephoto Zoom
Focal Length	200 - 600mm
APS Equivalent	300 - 900mm
Max Aperture	f/5.6 - 6.3
Min Aperture	f/32 - 36
Diaphragm Blades	11 (rounded)
Lens Construction	24 elements in 17 groups, including 5 ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass elements and 1 aspherical element; Nano AR coating; Fluorine coating on the front element
Diagonal Angle of View(Based on image circle)	12.5 to 4.2 degrees
Focus Details	AF via DDSSM (Direct Drive Super Sonicwave Motor); AF/MF switch; Focus limiter switch; 3 Customizable focus hold buttons
Front Element Rotation	No
Zoom System	Rotary (internal zoom)
Closest Focus	2.4m / 7.87 ft.
Magnification Ratio	0.66x / 1:1.52
Filter Size	95mm
Dimensions(Length x Diameter)	318.0mm x 111.5mm / 12.52 in. x 4.39 in.
Weight	2115g / 74.6 oz (without tripod mount)
Notes	Optical SteadyShot Image Stabilization; Dust and moisture resistant; Included Accessories: hood, front cap, rear cap, soft case, lens strap.
Typical Online Price	US$2,000 (Avail. August 2019)

I´m still in hope that Canon will build such a lens too... for RF mount

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

Only 1 lb. heavier than the Canon 100-400II. That's impressive given the 95mm filter size. It's not a G-master so the image quality may not equal Sony's best but it looks to be a solid offering at around $2000. This plus the GM 600 f4 and their existing GM100-400 and GM 400 2.8 completes a very nice stable of long lenses. If the rumored release of an A9 II pans out, Canon and Nikon could start to see some erosion of their sports dominance.

 

[xps]

Only 1 lb. heavier than the Canon 100-400II. That's impressive given the 95mm filter size. It's not a G-master so the image quality may not equal Sony's best but it looks to be a solid offering at around $2000. This plus the GM 600 f4 and their existing GM100-400 and GM 400 2.8 makes for a very nice stable of long lenses. Release of the rumoured A9 II and Canon and Nikon could start to see some erosion of their sports dominance.

Well, Sony does an good job here. No question.
Some of my relatives do own the A9 Mark 1 and the 400mm 2.8 GM, and this combination is very good. He was not satisfied with the A9, when he got it. But Sony did announce a lot of firmware updates. And now it is an very good product. Especially the 20fps are great when you can pick out the shot when the bird´s wing position is optimal, or when noiseless shooting is required.
What is still irritating for my old eyes, are the clipping pictures in the EVF (not fluently like n OVF).

I personally hope, Canon will hurry up and bring out an new body with competing specs.

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

Yes, I'm not sure my eyes will every really adjust to an EVF. I use a EVF/mirrorless as my everyday shooter now but when I go back to an OVF/DSLR my eyes are so much happier. I find I shoot with the back LCD almost half the time with a mirrorless. That's the cost of progress I guess.

Canon will get there eventually but I think it's going to take a little while yet. Sony has a pretty healthy head start.

 

[Pape]

cool lens but i would be just happy if canon makes that new 400m f5,6 with inbuild x1,4

 

[AlanF]

The lens is hugely long which makes problems for holding and packing, and also for rapid swinging around for BIF. It has also has a long mfd, which makes it much less useful when focussing on small wildlife like dragonflies etc. Here are some comparisons:
Sony 200-600mm 318mm long 2.11kg 2.4m mfd
Canon 100-400mm 193mm long 1.59kg 0.98m mfd
Canon 400mm DO II 233mm long 2.1kg 3.3m mfd
Only 1lb heavier - believe me that is significant. I feel the weight difference on a long walk between carrying the two Canon lenses. It's 125mm or 5" longer than the retracted 100-400mm II and as heavy as and 3 3/4" longer than the DO prime. I can get either of the Canons into a small backpack for an additional carry on for flights.
For me, no thank you. For a Sony person wanting a longer lens, OK. But, I would plump for the Sony 100-400mm.

 

[unfocused]

Interesting. For comparison:

Nikon 200-500 f5.6 $1,250 81 oz.
Sigma Contemporary 150-600 f6.3 $950 68.7 oz
Tamron G2 150-600 f6.3 $1,300 70 oz
Sigma Sport 60-600 f6.3 $2,000 95 oz
Sigma Sport 150-600 f6.3 $1,800 110 oz.

Sony. $2000, 74.6 oz.

It will be interesting to see how it stacks up to its competition. I'm not sure about the Nikon, but every review I've seen of the Sigmas and Tamron has shown them to be virtually identical in image quality. Even the Sigmas, despite the significant price difference between the Sports and Contemporary versions, do not show much difference in image quality.

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

The lens is hugely long which makes problems for holding and packing, and also for rapid swinging around for BIF. It has also has a long mfd, which makes it much less useful when focussing on small wildlife like dragonflies etc. Here are some comparisons:
Sony 200-600mm 318mm long 2.11kg 2.4m mfd
Canon 100-400mm 193mm long 1.59kg 0.98m mfd
Canon 400mm DO II 233mm long 2.1kg 3.3m mfd
Only 1lb heavier - believe me that is significant. I feel the weight difference on a long walk between carrying the two Canon lenses. It's 125mm or 5" longer than the retracted 100-400mm II and as heavy as and 3 3/4" longer than the DO prime. I can get either of the Canons into a small backpack for an additional carry on for flights.
For me, no thank you. For a Sony person wanting a longer lens, OK. But, I would plump for the Sony 100-400mm.

I beleive you are comparing the Canon 100-400's length at 100mm to the Sony's at 600mm. The Sony is a fixed length internal zoom which could be an advantage in some environments. At 400mm the Canon is about 275mm and even a bit longer if you need to use an EF /RF adapter. No surprise that a 600 is longer than a 400. A 600mm puts over twice the pixels on a target compared to a 400. There is a significant difference.

It's a whole lot smaller and lighter than my 600 f4 that's for sure. I'd say the size and weight are very reasonable for an internal zoom but I can see where some might prefer an extending zoom like the 100-400's. The close focusing is certainly a bonus with the Canon 100-400.

It's cheaper than the Sony 100-400 so it could end up being soft. I guess we'll have to wait for tests to see how sharp it is.

 

[AlanF]

I beleive you are comparing the Canon 100-400's length at 100mm to the Sony's at 600mm. The Sony is a fixed length internal zoom which could be an advantage in some environments. At 400mm the Canon is about 275mm and even a bit longer if you need to use an EF /RF adapter. No surprise that a 600 is longer than a 400. A 600mm puts over twice as many pixels on a target as a 400. There is a significant difference.

It's a whole lot smaller and lighter than my 600 f4 that's for sure. I'd say the size and weight are very reasonable for an internal zoom but I can see where some might prefer an extending zoom 100-400mm. The close focusing is certainly a bonus with the Canon 100-400.

It's cheaper than the Sony 100-400 so it could end up being soft. I guess we'll have to wait for tests to see how sharp it is.

In terms of resolution, it's not the number of pixels on target but the relative focal length (= sqrt number of pixels), and 600mm does give a 50% advantage. So agreed that the Sony will increase linear resolution by 50%, which you can just about equal with a Canon 1.4xTC. When you have to pack the lens, it's the retracted length that counts.

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

In terms of resolution, it's not the number of pixels on target but the relative focal length (= sqrt number of pixels), and 600mm does give a 50% advantage. So agreed that the Sony will increase linear resolution by 50%, which you can just about equal with a Canon 1.4xTC. When you have to pack the lens, it's the retracted length that counts.

In my experience that's not really how it works. Linear resolution might be a fine tool for measuring the sharpmness of lenses but for photographing small subjects with big lenses it's about subject area and pixels on subject.

An 8x10 is 4 times the size of a 4x5 despite only having twice as many pixels in any given dimension. Using your method of selectively measuring only one dimension a person might say an 8x10 is only twice the size of a 4x5 despite the fact that it uses 4x the amount of paper.

A 1.4x tele doubles the size of your subject which is why it needs twice as much light as the bare lens. A 2x quadruples the size of your subject which is why it needs 4 times as much light.

edit: IMO if Canon is going to stop supporting APSC sports bodies they really need a comparable 600mm zoom. 400mm is a great focal length for photographing wildlife on a 7D Mark or with a 5DS/R high body that can tolerate significant croping but it's generally just to short for full frame. The full frame market really needs an affordable 600mm.

 

[AlanF]

In my experience that's not really how it works. Linear resolution might be a fine tool for measuring the sharpmness of lenses but for photographing small subjects with big lenses it's about subject area and pixels on subject.

An 8x10 is 4 times the size of a 4x5 despite only having twice as many pixels in any given dimension. Using your method of selectively measuring only one dimension a person might say an 8x10 is only twice the size of a 4x5 despite the fact that it uses 4x the amount of paper.

A 1.4x tele doubles the size of your subject which is why it needs twice as much light as the bare lens. A 2x quadruples the size of your subject which is why it needs 4 times as much light.

edit: IMO if Canon is going to stop supporting APSC sports bodies they really need a comparable 600mm zoom. 400mm is a great focal length for photographing wildlife on a 7D Mark or with a 5DS/R high body that can tolerate significant croping but it's generally just to short for full frame. The full frame market really needs an affordable 600mm.

We might be talking at cross purposes here. Agreed that doubling the focal length will give you 4x more pixels on target and you can blow up to a larger size, 2x the height and width by doing so. With film you increase the size of a print with an enlarger, but how far you can usefully enlarge is limited by the resolution of the negative. With digital, you can increase the number of pixels 2-4x by using Photoshop if the resolution of the digital image is good enough, and a blown up image from a sharper can be better than one from a longer less sharp lens. It is important to understand what resolution is and how it is limited. What is crucial to me is the amount of detail you can see, and that is determined by resolution.

"Resolution depends on the distance between two distinguishable radiating points..........The resolution of a system is based on the minimum distance r at which the points can be distinguished as individuals." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution
That is, resolution is a linear measure, based on lateral separation, not one based on area. For a digital camera, three of the factors limiting resolution are the pixel density of the sensor, and the focal length and aperture of the lens.

When the lens outresolves the sensor, resolution scales as the square root of the number of pixels on the image provided by the sensor: double the number of pixels and you do increase resolution but by a factor of 1.414, and not by 2. (It's the Nyquist frequency of the sensor that limits resolution.)

If the sensor outresolves the lens, then increasing the pixel density and putting more pixels on the image will have little effect on resolution but increasing the resolving power of the lens will increase resolution. If the lens is optically good and is not limited by diffraction, lateral resolution increases linearly with the focal length of the lens: double the focal length and you do put 4x more pixels on the image but you increase resolution only by a factor of 2.

The current state of technology is that diffraction is often a limiting factor, and the aperture of the lens can be crucial. If you are above the diffraction limited aperture (higher f-number) then doubling the focal length of the lens without increasing the diameter of the front element (entrance pupil) will quadruple the number of pixels on the image but have hardly any increase in resolution. This is actually the case when you put a 2xTC on an f/6.3 lens on a crop camera or on a high resolution FF like a 5DSR, Nikon D850, a Sony 7RIII or even a 5DIV or R. You put 4x the number of pixels on the image but they are all twice as fuzzy, and you would do just as well by increasing the number of pixels using Photoshop.

I do in fact have a very good Sigma 150-600mm f/6.3 lens for my Canons, and would prefer Canon bring out small, lightweight, high quality primes like Nikon does, rather than another 200-600mm zoom. I am not alone in that desire.

 

[AlanF]

Wow, Sony did stage the release of the new lenses with a fanfare of reviews. They invited the regular reviewers to go on a boondoggle. Optyczne.pl, the parent site of lenstip https://www.optyczne.pl/706.1-artykuł-Nowe_superteleobiektywy_Sony_w_naszych_rękach.html, describes a bit of the "safari" they were invited to but makes some telling comments about the quality of the lens (translated from Polish by Chrome browser): "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."

It looks to me that if you can take the weight, the new Sigma 60-600mm is the one to go for, combining very good IQ with extensive zoom range. Has anyone tried it for BIF?

 

[xps]

Wow, Sony did stage the release of the new lenses with a fanfare of reviews. They invited the regular reviewers to go on a boondoggle. Optyczne.pl, the parent site of lenstip https://www.optyczne.pl/706.1-artykuł-Nowe_superteleobiektywy_Sony_w_naszych_rękach.html, describes a bit of the "safari" they were invited to but makes some telling comments about the quality of the lens (translated from Polish by Chrome browser): "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."

It looks to me that if you can take the weight, the new Sigma 60-600mm is the one to go for, combining very good IQ with extensive zoom range. Has anyone tried it for BIF?

Well placed marketing. IMO Sony needs the attention to grow in market share.

The optical quality might not be the best, but the lens will sell well, as it is the first lens for "normal" users you can afford within 600mm that comes from Sony.

Let us see, if canon will do something similar for RF.

 

[AlanF]

Well placed marketing. IMO Sony needs the attention to grow in market share.

The optical quality might not be the best, but the lens will sell well, as it is the first lens for "normal" users you can afford within 600mm that comes from Sony.

Let us see, if canon will do something similar for RF.

The ergonomics is horrible. The titchy Sony bodies are difficult to hold even with smaller telephotos, and a lens of that length will be so unbalanced that a tripod (monopod) would seem a must. I tried a Sony 100-400mm and it was just about manageable. But, time will tell on how well it sells. Maybe the rumoured Sony A9 II will have a full-sized body.

 

[chrysoberyl]

would prefer Canon bring out small, lightweight, high quality primes like Nikon does, rather than another 200-600mm zoom. I am not alone in that desire.

Hear, hear. It is this lack which keeps me out of birding.

John

 

[xps]

The ergonomics is horrible. The titchy Sony bodies are difficult to hold even with smaller telephotos, and a lens of that length will be so unbalanced that a tripod (monopod) would seem a must. I tried a Sony 100-400mm and it was just about manageable. But, time will tell on how well it sells. Maybe the rumoured Sony A9 II will have a full-sized body.

I think so too, but in this point, Sony needs to pay more attention to their users. The Youtuber Mr. Northrup postet an video, where he offered Sony to rename their menu listings to get them more understandable.
And Yes, their bodies are edged and not really optically appealing . But there is an very good sensor inside...
So, maybe Canon buys Sony´s cam division and we will have the world best bodies

 

[AlanF]

Reports coming in from user Alex Phan that the AF for infinity going to MFD is slow because Sony has economised by not using their linear motor so no good for bird flying towards you. Also soft with a 2xTC, which you can see from some of the posted shots by reviewers. He is sticking with the 100-400mm.

 

[Pape]

Would think it got GM label if as good as 100-400 ,
and price 2k sounds low for top quality optic with low variation. Its anyway like 1cm-1,5cm wider lens what canon 100-400.
Canon is expensive cause its difficult to make.

 

[AlanF]

Alex Phan is more complimentary in his brief review on Facebook. The lens will be great for the 95% but for the 5% like him, it's not quite up to the mark for AF. He isn't being condescending but he is the type who likes extreme BIF photography, which I suppose is the challenge once you have done enough bird portraits. Interestingly, on CR the BIF thread gets less attention than the Bird Portraits one. A drawback for me is the long mfd of about 2.4m, which is a serious disadvantage for small wild life close up.

 

[xps]

Received the 200-600 yesterday. Took some shots today. well performing. AF is really fast and accurate. A7III and 7RIII do work well on this lens. Handholding is very godd. Changing from 200 to 600mm is simple, the focal length can be changes by turning just about 90 degrees.
And grip space is enough for my hands.