Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

With my first wife, I'd have done better with a Garand. I'd be out of prison by now and the years in between would have been about as good in prison.

MDI Mainer

It seems to me what you get (in the real world) with the 600 mm f4 Sony prime is more low light capability. As someone suggested previously, that really mattered in the days of film.

But with today's sensors and software I'm not sure that matters as much, at least not to the tune of 11 grand, especially when you factor in the size/weight handicap vis-à-vis the 100-600 zoom.

Dragonophile

Thanks to all for the responses and some wonderful pictures. I think the weight factor would be enough to discourage me from owning a 600mm prime just by itself. I really like the portability and hand-hold factor of my Fujifilm 150-600. When I tried the Sigma 60-600mm, I quickly nixed that option due to weight though I loved the range. I really hadn't thought about the primes being so heavy.

Again, thanks to all.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I never tried the 60-600 but I have a Bigma (50-500). I found it slow to focus and soft when longer than around 450mm. Hope the 60-600 is better. The weight never really bothered me.

bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur

These are all valid points. I have shot Canon gear since I started shooting wildlife 15 years ago. I have shot Tamron and Sigma zoom lenses (150-600) extensively. They were good lenses; relatively lightweight, decent IQ with the cameras I was using then (both crop and FF sensors), versatile. Then I got a used Canon 600 mm f/4.0.
Absolutely no comparison. Much faster focusing (especially with the Canon R series mirrorless cameras. More accurate and faster AF, especially in low light. Better BG bokeh. With the high resolution cameras, better detailed shots.
Now, is that worth it to you? Only you can answer that. Weight, cost (used Canon 600 version I lenses can be had for under 3K), ease of traveling with lens. All factors. At one time I was very happy with the Sigma/Tamron zooms. I would not be happy today.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I would look at what is more important to you: Do you prefer zooming with your feet with a very heavy lens having a very wide aperture and narrow depth of field - or zooming with a somewhat lighter lens with a narrower (and possibly variable) aperture and wider depth of field? Yes, there will be a very small increase in image quality for a price increase of $11,000. And what is the final image purpose: a professional 6' X 9' wall shot for a good profit - or an excellent 20"X24" or 30"X40" for your own wall? You have to balance the size, weight, and cost against aperture, depth of field, and purpose (in this case). For a true professional or rich excellent amateur photographer, it might be worth the $13,000 and $2000 lenses. For most of us other photographers, the $2000 lens will get us where we want to go.

Dragonophile

I appreciate all the advice but remember this was a curiosity question. I have not/am not really considering buying a 600mm prime. I am an amateur hobbyist with no photographic income to justify any such purchase. I was simply wondering what those people with deep pockets and/or professional needs were getting for their money over and above what my Fujifilm 150-600mm was giving me. I hear bokeh, aperture for low light and a small increment of detail/sharpness that might easily not be apparent to my 75 yr old eyes. And of course, the additional substantial weight of the lens (and comcomitant lightening weight of my wallet!)

Again, thanks to all.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

MrPhotog

In a broader sense, this applies not just to a long lens, but to any expensive photo equipment. Including top-line cameras.

The ‘people with deep pockets’ often are not individual photographers. Rather, a newspaper might buy something like this as a ‘pool’ lens or camera body, to have it available for the photographer shooting next week’s football game. That 4-column wide closeup might have been cropped tightly from a portion of the image, which would be 20”x30” if the whole frame was used.

Or a college might get it so their students can learn on the best, most up-to-date equipment.

Or, maybe it will be mounted to a wall mount atop the right field wall at the baseball field. The lens would be prefocused on home plate, so a camera mounted to it can be triggered by radio, should any runner pass third base. Or it could capture the batter at the plate. No need to keep a person in that outfield position for the whole game. Set the camera to bursts of 10 frames, 1/4 second apart, and capture all the action at the plate on one big SD card.

Other pieces of expensive gear go to rental companies who will then make money by leasing it by the day, or the hour. If the rates are set properly, it will pay for itself, and turn a good profit, long before the newer, better, more-expensive version is released the next year. And when the replacement is acquired, the old one is sold.

Pros make requests to optical
/camera companies, and tell them what they want, or need, through surveys. The optical/camera companies them try to deliver. A few buyers drive the process.

Mwilliamsphotography Loc: Royal Oak Michigan & Palm Harbor Florida

I have, and have used, lenses that cost in excess of $10,000.

Currently, none of them are telephotos. I do not have a professional need for high-end telephoto prime, if and when I did, I'd rent it.

I do have a Sony FE 200-600/5.6-6.3 G, and an adapted Sony A mount 500/8 AF Reflex for the occasional telephoto need. Random wildlife imagery, especially when in residence in Florida. Or for shooting compressed elements for a composite photo.

Years ago I had a Canon 400/2.8 white lens which was the equivalent of $12 to $13K in today's prices ... it was a beast that required a Sherpa to carry it. The lens was built for tough duty like that of a Pro Sports photographer. At any given distance, it isolated the subject better than a f/5.6 or 6.3 lens could ever dream of doing. It was a very specific utilitarian tool for work-a-day pros.

These lenses are best bought used if you can find some amateur who under-estimated their arm strength, or who's wife stumbled across the B&H bill ...

Mwilliamsphotography Loc: Royal Oak Michigan & Palm Harbor Florida

BTW, here's a shot from the Sony 200-600G @ 600mm. It was shot in my yard in Florida which abuts to a wild jungle sort of area.

I saw a couple of Bob-Cat kittens frolicking and stepped out to get a couple of shots ... Momma Bob-Cat was close by I'm sure, so I was lucky to avoid a mauling.

This little one decided to hunt me ...

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

A 1.4x TC would "cost" ONE STOP!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I think a good way to look for the answer to your question is that if you don't or can't see and understand the difference between the two options, then there is no reason for you to spend the extra money, at least right now. As you learn more, or as your needs change, or as your wants change, then your motivation might change.