New 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS & FE 600mm f/4 GM OSS

https://petapixel.com/2019/06/11/sony-unveils-200-600mm-f-5-6-6-3-and-600mm-f-4-super-tele-lenses/

 

Sony did a great job of keeping this down to mere speculation before springing a wonderful surprise for us. Look at the low weight on that 600mm!

 

Calling my supplier...

The new 200-600 lens zooms internally, compared to the 100-400, which grows about 4" toward the long end of the range. It is a G lens, not GM like the latter, so expect some compromises in image quality. The difference may be small, considering my experience with other G and GM lenses. The 200-600 should be great for video too, without the balancing problems of an extendible lens, nor resorting to Super-35 mode for extra reach.

 

With superlative 400 and 600 lenses, coupled with the speed, precision and tracking capability of the A9, it's only a matter of time before Sony dominates professions sports photography too. Did I forget to mention built-in, wired ethernet connectivity?

The new 200-600 lens zooms internally, compared to the 100-400, which grows about 4" toward the long end of the range. It is a G lens, not GM like the latter, so expect some compromises in image quality. The difference may be small, considering my experience with other G and GM lenses. The 200-600 should be great for video too, without the balancing problems of an extendible lens, nor resorting to Super-35 mode for extra reach.

 

With superlative 400 and 600 lenses, coupled with the speed, precision and tracking capability of the A9, it's only a matter of time before Sony dominates professions sports photography too. Did I forget to mention built-in, wired ethernet connectivity?

 

I haven't noticed a difference in IQ between my G and GM lenses. I think it's mostly build quality and weather sealing.

 

693-AF points, with Lock-on tracking anywhere on the EVF, animal eye-detect (now on a7RIII and coming to a9) people eye-detect, considerably lighter than Cankon's latest, faster AF, etc., etc., etc.

 

I've got dibs on the first one with my supplier.

considerably lighter than Cankon's latest

 

Could you clarify which of the announced products is considerably lighter?

 

Canon's 600/4 is 3050g, Sony's new 600/4 is 3040g, that's a 0.3% reduction in weight. On the 400/2.8 side, Canon's is 2840g and Sony's is 2895g, that's actually 2% heavier.

 

Neither Canon nor Nikon have current 200-600mm zooms though Nikon have a 200-500mm that is slightly lighter and has a slightly wider aperture at 300-500mm than the Sony, but extends while zooming and is probably a construction- and AF-wise lesser lens, but also less expensive.

 

Nikon's latest long lens is 500/5.6 PF at 1.46kg, which Sony 500mm lens is considerably lighter than that?

 

It does not seem that any of the manufacturers has a monopoly on lightweight supertelephoto lenses, they have all produced innovative offerings.

 

The 200-600 with internal zoom is very appealing for tripod / gimbal use. I find extending supertele zooms very annoying to use because the balance shifts as the lens is zoomed, and it must be rebalanced to work correctly on the gimbal. However, since the lens doesn't contract, it takes quite a large amount of space in the bag. Still, this is definitely preferable to me and I hope other manufacturers also produce more internal zooms in this range.

 

The 600/4 will probably appeal to affluent wildlife photographers - for sports 600mm is very long and quite unusual.

 

it's only a matter of time before Sony dominates professions sports photography too

 

While they have some distinct technological advantages, I have so far seen no evidence that this is actually happening at indoor sports arenas that I've been attending (mostly figure skating). It's Canon dominated across the board at least in my country (maybe 2/3 or more), also the international press agency shooters also seem to use mainly Canon (with some Nikon in the minority). I doubt these people will be changing brands in numbers, it is just too expensive to do that, the photography doesn't pay like it used to, and they seem confident in Canon. Many of them have older lenses and camera bodies which seem to be working fine, how surprising is that. :) Of course, things can change but I suspect they won't. The purchase decisions made by top sports photographers seem to elude the analysis of internet photo gear forum commentators, it's like they live in a completely different world (which is probably true, I'm afraid). :) Now, Sony are very popular in other areas, especially in video, in portrait / wedding photography, travel etc.

Changes will occur amongst professional sports photographers when "good enough" is no longer good enough, compared to the competition. It is likely that heavy artillery for big sports events is provided by agencies, and corporations are slow adapters of technology. That said, when change occurs, it will happen practically overnight.

 

DSLR development has reached its practical limit for the aging technology, while mirrorless technical advantages continue to accrue. Mirrorless has a particular advantage in AF accuracy and tracking, which are of vital interest in sports photography. High frame rates, taken in short bursts, yield a high keeper rate per scene, because you can generally find just the right expressions and placement in a cluster of frames. Image quality is of limited value in newsprint (80 dpi), but significant in glossy sports magazines, and very significant in web-based news (which is how publishing is evolving). The quality of images I've seen, taken with these two new Sony lenses, is stunning. I am no less pleased with results I get from a 100-400 lens, or even my original 70-200 f/4. "Good enough" is barely a milestone, much less a goal.

I've seen a lot of good things about the 200-600 zoom this week. It's a range I can definitely use. I pulled the pin, sight unseen, this weekend, and hope to get delivery in August. Do I pair this with a 70-200/4 or 100-400/4.5-5.6? Either way, something has to go from my EDC gear.

Looking forward to seeing the images you get with this new lens.

The UV filter I ordered for the lens arrived Saturday. It's the size of a demitasse saucer.

No rush, but I'm debating how to carry this monster. RRS makes a padded lens case, and also pouch with a drawstring top (for convenience). They also make a large holster (size 150) large enough to hold the lens attached to a body. LowePro makes a very good padded case with a zippered top, for the lens only. I'm inclined to get the last, since it is only the size of a small tom-tom (from my high school drum corps days). The alternative is to dedicate half of my backpack for its carriage.

No rush, but I'm debating how to carry this monster. RRS makes a padded lens case, and also pouch with a drawstring top (for convenience). They also make a large holster (size 150) large enough to hold the lens attached to a body. LowePro makes a very good padded case with a zippered top, for the lens only. I'm inclined to get the last, since it is only the size of a small tom-tom (from my high school drum corps days). The alternative is to dedicate half of my backpack for its carriage.

 

It will come with a case, so don't worry about something for storage in-home. If you carry a backpack in the field, then get something that will include room for this.

 

When I'm in the field, I've got the 400/f2.8 slung over my right shoulder, the 100-400mm around my neck and the 12-24mm and 24-105mm in a small sling-pack on my back. Two-bodies, of course. For shooting wildlife, you want it readily at hand. A simple, single, padded strap does the trick. I'm using the strap that came with my 400mm and one of my old Canon Professional Services straps.

 

For wildlife, you need quick draw. In workshops I've attended, too many people are struggling to get their rig up and ready, when I've already taken 80-shots. Have your camera(s) at hand and all the setting set, so you're ready when the bald eagle flies by. Believe me, I shoot with too many people that are getting tail-feathers only.

 

Something like this will also do the trick:

RuggardPro Strap with Quick Hitch Connector Or the strap that comes with it.

 

It's only around 4-lbs, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it's size and weight. You'll soon get accustomed to it.

No rush, but I'm debating how to carry this monster. RRS makes a padded lens case, and also pouch with a drawstring top (for convenience). They also make a large holster (size 150) large enough to hold the lens attached to a body. LowePro makes a very good padded case with a zippered top, for the lens only. I'm inclined to get the last, since it is only the size of a small tom-tom (from my high school drum corps days). The alternative is to dedicate half of my backpack for its carriage.

 

One more thing, this is a hand held lens. With OSS and IBIS, there's no need for a tripod. Also, you'll normally have shutter speed up where it hardly matter; however, you can easily hand hold this below 1/100-sec.

My "field" is usually an auditorium, along with 200+ pounds of audio and video gear. I need something to protect the lens in transit, preferably something stackable. The best solution may be a spot cleared in an existing case, or a purpose-assembled case for video (cage, monitor, follow-focus, et. al.) Outside (other than that brief interval between insides), something relatively easy to carry and weather proof would be useful,

I need something to protect the lens in transit, preferably something stackable.

 

I like Pelican style cases, I have found similar cases called Apache cases at Harbor Frieght and I see them on Amazon, water proof, really tough foam filled hard shell that you can cut out for shape of items stored. I remeber seeing a guy putting these through some brutal tests on YouTube do this. I have three cases, one holds two cameras and a lot of lenses, batteries, the second holds 5 speedlights and remote radio triggers and a 150-600mm lens, the third hald a couple studio strobes. It's a low cost option that works well when I have to take all my gear to a shoot. They look very pro too.

Edited July 9, 2019 by Mark Keefer

A Pelican 1504 with moveable dividers is on my short list. I have two already for other specialized gear. There would be ample room for a camera body, recorder, batteries, and accessories. Die-cut foam can't be reconfigured. Pick-and-pluck foam takes too much space for efficient packing. Another choice might be a Porta-Brace video case, which has room for an assembled cage, with follow focus and a matte box, and loads from the top.