The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sony 600mm f4 GM First Impressions

Pradeep

Member
I never got to use my 400 2.8 and traded it in for a 600 f4, which I received last week.

This is one amazing lens. The weight is less than what I expected, though still more than what I can casually walk around with. However, I can definitely hand hold it for a few minutes. It focuses quickly as expected, the images are super sharp.

What really blows my mind is how good it is with Sony's TCs. I had used the 1.4x with my 100-400 but felt it did affect the sharpness a tad. And I never really used the 2X because my experience with the Canon versions was so bad in the past.

I just did some very quick tests in the backyard and the results are quite impressive. See if you can figure out which one is at what focal length. I focused on the left eye of the figure and what is also interesting is that the camera used eye-AF to do this, even though it is not really a living human.

One is taken with the lens at 600mm (bare lens), another at 840mm and the third is at 1200mm. Can you tell the difference?

LensTest_20190902_A92_02007.jpgLensTest_20190902_A92_01992.jpgLensTest_20190902_A92_01989.jpg
 

Barry Haines

Active member
I never got to use my 400 2.8 and traded it in for a 600 f4, which I received last week.

This is one amazing lens. The weight is less than what I expected, though still more than what I can casually walk around with. However, I can definitely hand hold it for a few minutes. It focuses quickly as expected, the images are super sharp.

What really blows my mind is how good it is with Sony's TCs. I had used the 1.4x with my 100-400 but felt it did affect the sharpness a tad. And I never really used the 2X because my experience with the Canon versions was so bad in the past.

I just did some very quick tests in the backyard and the results are quite impressive. See if you can figure out which one is at what focal length. I focused on the left eye of the figure and what is also interesting is that the camera used eye-AF to do this, even though it is not really a living human.

One is taken with the lens at 600mm (bare lens), another at 840mm and the third is at 1200mm. Can you tell the difference?

View attachment 143914View attachment 143915View attachment 143916

First off congrats Pradeep on getting your new 600mm Sony lens...I am looking forward to seeing your future wildlife images with that particular lens, I am sure you will get the very best out of it :) - ENJOY :)

I honestly have absolutely no idea which lens is the bare lens and which ones had what TC added to the 600mm...It's a bit of fun, so I will start the ball rolling with a wild guess.
The third image looks just a tad bit sharper than images 1 and 2 to my eyes and I mean just tad it's really hard to see the difference when pixel peeping...The 1st and 2nd images look very similar in sharpness and I can't tell the difference...image 1 looks like it has slightly more vignetting than image 2.

First image 1 of 3.................600mm with a 2.0x TC added
Second image 2 of 3.............600mm with a 1.4x TC added
Third image 3 of 3................600mm without a TC
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Congrats on the lens Pradeep, I'm sure it will do great in your hands :thumbup:

Now with regard to your quizz:
I can't see any real difference in sharpness on the eye/face, however I can see some slight dof differences, looking at the mortar and bricks
However a cropped 600 mm will have a slightly bigger dof when used at the same f-stop, but this phenomena will be reversed if all three images are shot wide open.
So my question (if you want to tell :eek:) is if these were all shot at the same f-stop or not.

But anyway, I think your point is that the converters hardly influence sharpness, and that's a good thing no matter what :salute:
 

Pradeep

Member
Thanks guys.

Barry, you are absolutely correct. The images are indeed in that order, the 1200mm shot (lens pous 2x TC) is the first, the 840mm (lens plus 1.4x TC) second and finally the 600mm. The vignetting was not noticeable on my screen, but the light was changing as the sun was going in and out of the clouds, the 1200mm image was taken about 10 minutes after the 600mm and even though I had adjusted the shutter speed accordingly, the light was still not enough.

Pieter, all three were shot wide open but of course the TCs make it f5.6 and f8. I did crop the images to have the same fov, so the 600mm shot is cropped a little more than 50%.

What is interesting for me so far is that in my very limited testing there is almost no vignetting, unlike with my 100-400 which even at f10 shows vignetting with the 1.4X.

Here are a couple more pictures, I don't get much birds in my backyard on account of living on a very busy road (cars going 60mph in front of my house) and being an urban area, but I have a feeder set up and do see an occasional blue jay or cardinal apart from the usual sparrows.

This guy was sitting on the tree near the feeder. Taken with the bare lens at 600mm - first one and then with the 2X attached - second image. And yes, the TCs from Sony are not only smaller and lighter, but also sharper than what I had from Canon. This too is a huge bonus for birders and wildlife shooters.

LensTest_20190902_A92_02065.jpgLensTest_20190902_A92_02013.jpg
 

Barry Haines

Active member
Thanks Pradeep, the changing light explains what looked like possible vignetting and exposure differences between shots...I did study the images at great length, assuming that all 3 images were taken WO at whatever the corresponding aperture was with or without a TC attached. I realised that you would strip the exif metadata of each image, so as not to make it easy for us :banghead:

Anyway it's looking excellent for you or anybody else in the market for that tele lens, which is great news...Your Blue Jay stands out well against the background...nice one...Cheers Barry
 
Last edited:

Pradeep

Member
Thanks K-H.

Hi Doug, it was the a9.

I have an a7r4 on order and can't wait to try that one out. I can imagine how one could use the 600 with 2x on the a7r4 and then crop deeply into the image to get even more reach. Great for birds and even larger animals that are far away.
 

doug

Well-known member
What's your impression of the size & weight? Is it manageable? Can you hike with it?
 

Pradeep

Member
What's your impression of the size & weight? Is it manageable? Can you hike with it?
I have only had it for a few days, and just used once so far. I am barely 5'5" and not muscular at all, so it is going to be hard for me any way. However, compared to say the Canon 600 MkII and the 1DX2 combo which I did use for a while in the past, it is much easier. The heft seems less, although I think the 400 2.8 was lighter overall, perhaps being shorter and less bulky.

If you can carry a full size DSLR and say a 300 2.8 this too should be manageable. It feels about the same in weight and heft. The lens of course is much longer but the a9 is so much smaller than say a 1DX2, it makes up for it. The balance is also easier, being more towards the back of the lens.

I am not much into hiking myself. In the end, most people who are going to use this will not be hiking with it for long distances and unless you are a big guy, hand holding for too long is also going to be tiresome. Most will use it on a tripod or bean bag and sometimes for BIF in a hand held mode.
 

doug

Well-known member
I had an opportunity to get a few seconds of hands-on time with the 600 a few days ago and it's not the unmanageable beast I had imagined. The owner was using it with the a9 and needless to say he was very happy with the weight and performance of the combination. His previous experience had been with Canon's Big Whites.

My remaining concern is what do I do with it on long hikes. Some of my hikes are day-long events at extreme elevation, or overnight; taking it with me will slow this 67-year-old body or limit its range, the alternative of leaving it buried in the camper subject to heat and break-ins isn't appealing.
 

Pradeep

Member
I had an opportunity to get a few seconds of hands-on time with the 600 a few days ago and it's not the unmanageable beast I had imagined. The owner was using it with the a9 and needless to say he was very happy with the weight and performance of the combination. His previous experience had been with Canon's Big Whites.

My remaining concern is what do I do with it on long hikes. Some of my hikes are day-long events at extreme elevation, or overnight; taking it with me will slow this 67-year-old body or limit its range, the alternative of leaving it buried in the camper subject to heat and break-ins isn't appealing.
Doug, for you, the 200-600 may be a great option when you are hiking. I've not tried it myself, but although bigger than the 100-400, it is said to be much easier to hand-hold for a long time and is definitely smaller and lighter than the big 600 prime.

Having said that, most people who hike long distances are really looking to reach a beautiful spot for a great landscape shot, not sure you will need a big tele-zoom for that, rather a wide-zoom or prime perhaps.
 

doug

Well-known member
Doug, for you, the 200-600 may be a great option when you are hiking. I've not tried it myself, but although bigger than the 100-400, it is said to be much easier to hand-hold for a long time and is definitely smaller and lighter than the big 600 prime.

Having said that, most people who hike long distances are really looking to reach a beautiful spot for a great landscape shot, not sure you will need a big tele-zoom for that, rather a wide-zoom or prime perhaps.
Some of the high-elevation critters live far from roads.
 

stngoldberg

Well-known member
Just received the Sony 200-600mm lens; the Sony A9 will be ordered shortly. Next I will educate myself on the menu system, and hopefully I will have some images in a few weeks.
Having had years of experience capturing images of flying birds, I am very interested in how this a Sony rig measures up to my Nikon experience
Stanley
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Just received the Sony 200-600mm lens; the Sony A9 will be ordered shortly. Next I will educate myself on the menu system, and hopefully I will have some images in a few weeks.
Having had years of experience capturing images of flying birds, I am very interested in how this a Sony rig measures up to my Nikon experience
Stanley

Well, good luck to you. There are 2 different menu systems. Both are useful, the comprehensive one, but also the one that gives access to a dozen or so primary functions.
 

Pradeep

Member
Just received the Sony 200-600mm lens; the Sony A9 will be ordered shortly. Next I will educate myself on the menu system, and hopefully I will have some images in a few weeks.
Having had years of experience capturing images of flying birds, I am very interested in how this a Sony rig measures up to my Nikon experience
Stanley
Yes, that will be an interesting exercise. Several of my close photo buddies are Nikon shooters and swear by everything Nikon. I've never had a Nikon system, but did not believe it would be a lot better than the Canon 1DX2 which I owned and used in the field quite a bit.

For me, the a9 is definitely a better choice in terms of AF capabilities, sensor, frame rate and overall convenience.

Would be good to hear your experience Stanley.
 

doug

Well-known member
A bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

The difference in weight between the 600/4 + carbon fiber Series 5 Gitzo and the 500/4.5 FD + aluminum Series 5 Gitzo I used to hike with is negligible.
The local dealer will have a 600/4 in the store on Monday.
The local dealer has my telephone number.
The piggy bank is sufficiently funded.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
A bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

The difference in weight between the 600/4 + carbon fiber Series 5 Gitzo and the 500/4.5 FD + aluminum Series 5 Gitzo I used to hike with is negligible.
The local dealer will have a 600/4 in the store on Monday.
The local dealer has my telephone number.
The piggy bank is sufficiently funded.
I'd say - you're game, Doug !
 

stngoldberg

Well-known member
Yes, that will be an interesting exercise. Several of my close photo buddies are Nikon shooters and swear by everything Nikon. I've never had a Nikon system, but did not believe it would be a lot better than the Canon 1DX2 which I owned and used in the field quite a bit.

For me, the a9 is definitely a better choice in terms of AF capabilities, sensor, frame rate and overall convenience.

Would be good to hear your experience Stanley.
I have the camera and lens now and presently struggling through the menu system. Difficult to understand how obviously gifted engineers can produce such a disjointed menu system, but I will master it and report my impressions soon
Stanley
 
Top