Sony 200-600mm, a bad copy? (Page 3): Ok, thanks.

Pat F 4119 Loc: Branford, CT

CHG_CANON wrote:

I don't see any equipment issues. Save the UHH bla... (show quote)

Ok, thanks.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Pat F 4119 wrote:

A boat is not a subject?

A boat can be a subject but in that image it’s not clear that any particular boat is the main subject. If that’s the kind of scene you bought the lens for then I would return it because you don’t need it. Shoot something you would actually use that lens for. That boat is pretty far away. Even at its size it doesn’t fill 1/4th of the frame. No lens is gonna give you super sharp detail at that distance. If you were shooting something like a bird from that distance it would be very small on your screen. Find a subject around the size of your normal subject at a distance that fills at least 1/4 of your frame and try that. Better yet, go out and shoot whatever it is you bought the lens for and see how it performs, keeping in mind a lens like that will have at least a short learning curve to get the most out of it.

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

Pat F 4119 wrote:

Ok, here are new raw samples, so the EXIF info should be intact. You'll notice that the last photo was taken with a 70-200mm, f2.8II, and it seems to be sharper. I used an A7RIV body.

I'm curious to know whether I'm simply expecting $15k performance from a $2k lens. Thanks.

The first thing I noticed after posting the original jpeg's was that your shooting in a reduced resolution mode. The camera is capable of shooting at 61MPx (9504x6336) but your images were shot in the 15MPx mode (4743x3162). Suggest resetting your mode back to 61MPx and see what you get.

The second thing I noticed was the the focus mode was not listed in LR processed exif file. Unknown whether you used manual focus or autofocus nor the focus mode such as spot or wide-area. So a a replacement, I used the PS's Select | Focus area to get an idea where the sharpest part of the image was. PS indicated that the grass area around the water was the sharpest area, suggesting that the camera focused on the foreground grass. I would suggest using manual focus, where you get the 10x zoom to aid focus and repeat. Don't let the autofocus decide the focal point for a lens test.

And I would suggest reviewing the video in the link I provided in an response in this thread.

Hope this helps
Mike

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

I quit using any filter on my Sony 200-600mm. I found that the Polarizer I was using degraded the image.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

ORpilot wrote:

I quit using any filter on my Sony 200-600mm. I found that the Polarizer I was using degraded the image.

Some of us here on UHH have stated this as a definite possibility - others refuse to believe this at all costs !

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Pat F 4119 wrote:

Ok, here are new raw samples, so the EXIF info should be intact. You'll notice that the last photo was taken with a 70-200mm, f2.8II, and it seems to be sharper. I used an A7RIV body.

I'm curious to know whether I'm simply expecting $15k performance from a $2k lens. Thanks.

Hard to find objective reviews and lens tests for any lens but here is a technical one: Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS - Review / Test Report - Analysis. Their conclusion is consistent with other more casual reviews:

"The Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS is not a perfect lens but it is no less than a steal for the money and it alone may be a reason for buying into the Sony system - if you are really into such long tele lenses. The Sony lens is, unsurprisingly, very sharp in the lower to mid parts of its zoom range. At 600mm, the corner quality suffers somewhat whereas the center quality remains impressively high."

It's overall performance is only slightly better at f/8 and you can make up the difference by shooting at ISO 400 or 500.

You should be happy that you did not spend a lot more for the lens to get more performance than anyone can see without pixel peeping.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Pat F 4119 wrote:

Ok, here are new raw samples, so the EXIF info should be intact. You'll notice that the last photo was taken with a 70-200mm, f2.8II, and it seems to be sharper. I used an A7RIV body.

I'm curious to know whether I'm simply expecting $15k performance from a $2k lens. Thanks.

Beautifully atmospheric shots - and I can smell the sea air 🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯

gwilliams6

Pat F 4119 wrote:

I'm primarily a real estate and headshot photograp... (show quote)

I have owned a Sony 200-600mm lens since they first came out in August 2019. It has been a stellar performer, with excellent sharpness from day one. I have used it with my Sony A9, A7RIV, A1 with superior results.

It may be your settings on your camera and lens, or it may be your techniques, or it may be a bad copy.

Here just a few pf the thousand of shots I have made with that lens, around the world. These were all handheld shots.

Click on download to see better image quality.

Cheers and best to you.

(Download)

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

tca2267 wrote:

I have the Sony 200-600which I use on my Nikon Z8 and Z9 and its Great....sharp and fast...Sound like you may have gotten a bad copy.

A spectacularly captured trio 🥇🥇🥇🥇🥇

SteveHmeyer Loc: Cincinnati OH USA

I use this lens for moon photography and it is incredibly sharp and the color excellent for other uses. With both an a7r v and with an a6500 - giving an effective FL of 900mm - results are great.

Even on a tripod for moon photography I use IBIS and a 10 second delay and manual focus.

As one post pointed out at high magnification atmospheric shimmering can be a problem and leaves mining in a light breeze can be too.

Photo with 200-600mm lens at 600mm on a6500. ISO 400, 1/200 sec. Only resized no post sharpening or other modifications.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

SteveHmeyer wrote:

As one post pointed out at high magnification atmospheric shimmering can be a problem ...

Good point I overlooked earlier. Nearly all of the better examples are of nearby subjects, not distant landscapes.

gwilliams6

Yes atmospheric conditions at long distances can cause ANY sharp lens to look unsharp, any.

But when you have calm atmospheric conditions, yes you can use the 200-600mm for long distance landscape shots.

Hera a Sony A7RIV, Sony 200-600mm lens shot, at 200mm of famed Monument Valley, the scene of countless movies, TV shows, Commercials, Navajo Lands, Arizona/Utah border, USA

Click on download for better image quality.

Cheers and best to you.

(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

gwilliams6 wrote:

Yes atmospheric conditions at long distances can cause ANY sharp lens to look unsharp, any.

But when you have clear and calm atmospheric conditions, yes you can use the 200-600mm for long distance landscape shots.

That's why I test my lenses for sharpness early in the day in Florida. From about 10AM on things get pretty wobbly, especially over the water where the humidity is high.

SteveHmeyer Loc: Cincinnati OH USA

Nice composition!

gwilliams6

selmslie wrote:

That's why I test my lenses for sharpness early in the day in Florida. From about 10AM on things get pretty wobbly, especially over the water where the humidity is high.