gwilliams6

Very nice shot.

Yes the Sony 200-600mm lens is outstanding, and at $2k it is a bargain compared to $13K. I shared some of my shots with that Sony 200-600mm lens on page three of this thread. I have owned one since it first came out in 2019, and I love it. It can do 30fps with full AF-C on my 50mp A1, and gives me excellent IQ, even on my 61mp A7RIV.

Olle Nilsson:The lens of your WILDLIFE dreams - Sony FE 200-600 G OSS Long-Term Review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giAa2tWa8RQ

Cheers and best to you.

Barn Owl

wdross, Thanks for your opinion of real life experience with your camera system.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

And you are living proof of what I have said. The $2000 zoom lens is good enough for a professional to get the max imaging out of it. Is the $13,000 lens that much better? Yes, for a pro like you with the skills along with the needs for that type and style shooting. Yet you would not buy the $13,000 lens without a true need for your shooting. But for some poorer very good amateurs, it becomes very hard to justify the extra $11,000 cost even for any increased quality.

gwilliams6

Exactly,


The 600mm f4 GM is awesome, but not over SIX times better at $13K USD than the $2K 200-600mm, IMHO. Others may totally disagree and that is fine.

As I said, if you have the money then get the one you want and be happy. If I absolutely had to have that $13k lens to make my living, then I would get it as an investment. Fortunately I can make my money as a photographer with all my other lenses and the 200-600mm.

The quality of the modern long zooms and the quality of the cameras and image sensors have made it possible for those on tighter budgets to still afford excellent gear, that can produce excellent image quality in whatever format you choose, micro four thirds, APS-C and fullframe.

I know a couple hobbyists that have the $13K 600mm f4 GM, $12K 400mm f2.8 GM AND the $2K 200-600mm lens in their kits. One is a retired aviation businessman in Texas, and one is a still-practicing top medical neuro-surgeon in a well known hospital in Minnesota.

The neuro-surgeon had the 600mm f4 GM and 400mm f2.8 GM and I dared him to try the 200-600mm. He thought it would be trash at that $2k price, until he saw the fine images from folks including professional wildlife shooters like Mark Smith were producing with it. He bought the 200-600mm, and he still prefers his 600mm f4 when he has the distance and the low light need for it, but he does use the 200-600mm and gets great shots with it also when it is the right choice..

They have made their money, and this is what they choose to spend it on, mainly photographing wildlife. They both are very skilled and make stellar shots with all their lenses. We belong to a few Facebook Wildlife Photography Groups together.

More power to them if it is what makes them happy and they can afford it all.

Sometimes with my 200-600mm lens it is just a 600mm shot as a fisherman sits with his line in the Caribbean Sea as a sail catamaran cruises by on a sunset sail on island of Sint Maarten/St. Martin .

Or a 200-600mm lens, 600mm shot of cool clouds and sky as the sun goes down into the Caribbean Sea with a crouching fisherman silhouetted in it.

Click on download to see better image quality

Cheers and best to you.

(Download)


(Download)

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Needs a place to hide it too

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

When I was looking for reach, I have these firm requirements.
1. Needs to be cheap because will be used sparingly
2. Just need to increase reach
3. Good enough IQ/better IQ that what my present lenses can offer

I asked UHH for their collective experience and suggestions and used that list for my search, arriving at a 2nd hand a Sigma 150-600 sports (I missed a nicely priced G2).

What I experienced with the big lens are:

1. Its heavy. Way more than I can hold on without support for a long time.
2. I end up buying a monopod to support it
3. I need an even faster focus
4. Sometimes, I really needed more light (brightness)
5. It's a completely new ball game. Panning and keeping that flying bird in the box at 600mm is a jump in skillset.
6. Needs a car, literally. Having this in a backpack is leaving a lot of stuffs behind.
7. Can't hide it.
8. I get more attention, oohs and aahs from other people including other photographers around me. Weirdly they seem to show more respect/expectations to those with bigger tools.
9. Somehow the dynamic range seems narrower, making it less forgiving and blowing up highlights in JPEG SOOC. Maybe needs more shots in RAW.
10.Sometimes, 600mm is still not enough. So no, I would not want a 400 or 500mm prime unless they are at least 6 times better in IQ as cropping them will just lead to the same IQ as the 600.

What does this list mean?
Personally, except for #8, the $$$$$ lens, should improve on each of these points to get my attention.
Unless the job requires the use of those lenses, I'd stay with the one I have. I got more than I bargained for, and that's it for me.

In the end, reading the past posts, everything just comes down to what one wants, needs and personal satisfaction.

Unfortunately (maybe I missed someone's post), except for asking others to search or follow a link outside UHH, no one posted a direct comparison of 2 images from a 2000 & 13,000 lens so we can see for ourselves what we missed. We got the theories right, but where's the cake?

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Autofocus speed and minimum focus distance will very in addition to weight. Nikon has the most options for long prime and zoom lenses.

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

While the evaluations are NOT directly comparable I have satisfied my curiosity by comparing lenses tested here "https://opticallimits.com/Reviews". And, as others have mentioned there are several factors other than IQ that impact choice.

Elfoto1975 Loc: Orlando Florida

Nothing show in the page is broken the link

Basil_O Loc: Minneapolis, MN

This is a test shot I took after getting a well-used Minolta 600 f4. It shows one of the reasons why I wanted such a lens: the bokeh capabilities. I will never get a background like this with my 150-600.

gwilliams6

You asked for it, here it is, from back in 2019, using and comparing the Sony 600mm f4 GM and the Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 G lens. Just remember they are being tested on 2019 focusing systems. While excellent, these focusing systems have been improved with firmware, hardware and processor updates in newer Sony camera models since then.

(2019) NEW Sony 600mm f/4 & 200-600mm Lenses | Image Comparison!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7_vy-H488w

Cheers and best to you.

Dragonophile

Thanks! Nice comparison and informative.

gwilliams6

You are welcome.

Cheers and best to you.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I have an expensive Canon Prime, I also belong to a Facebook photography group where one of the members posts images taken with his Sigma 150-600 Sports lens and I have to say the quality of his images (birds) is excellent. I also know that he is very good in post so it is hard to say if it is the lens which has to be really good or his processing that makes his images as good as they are.