Jump to content

Preview - Sony announces the 400/2.8 FE


Recommended Posts

It will be released in September. There was little doubt that it would perform well. Steve Huff really likes it:

 

Link: The Sony 400mm f/2.8 G Master) IN HAND, IN USE. What a lens! – Steve Huff Photo

 

The only thing missing is a matching 1.4x TC. I really don't see the point of a separate 600/4 once you have a TC with the 400/2.8. IMO.

 

Basically, what this lens means - on paper - is the official death of the DSLR. For many of us, the DSLR died years ago, but in reality a lot of people found them necessary for certain tasks. Sure, you can successfully adapt third party lenses to Sony bodies, such as the Canon 600/4, but you don't quite get the full benefit of cameras like the A9.

 

The native lens will make the A9 the number one platform for sports photographers for the foreseeable future. Which is not necessarily my choice if I were a sports shooter. I'd go with Micro 4/3, probably. Or even an integrated camera such as the RX10. That's just me, though. YMMV.

 

For me, this lens is not relevant. I don't think it ever will be, whatever it costs. But I congratulate Sony for taking digital photography forward.

 

One example of an adapted super-telephoto on the A9:

 

(10:59)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony just released firmware v4.00 for the A9. Among other things, it is supposed to improve AF and tracking. Those were pretty good already, so it is obvious where Sony wants to go with this. The potential is almost unlimited.

 

The A9 will lock on and track a subject to the edge of the screen, then recapture it when it comes back into view through face recognition. The AF coverage is 93%, compared to about 25% for a DSLR. Detectors are built into the sensor, not the bottom of the mirror box via mirrors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At $12,000 for this lens, those "death knell" tolls for the DSLR is still a little too faint for the masses, LOL...

 

Let's just wait and see how many of 'em one can count on the sidelines at pro sporting events the next 6-8 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At $12,000 for this lens, those "death knell" tolls for the DSLR is still a little too faint for the masses, LOL...

 

Let's just wait and see how many of 'em one can count on the sidelines at pro sporting events the next 6-8 months.

 

 

yes. we all await the "death knell" in professional football photographers ... (in the next 6- 8 months)

 

 

36175137291_ce14ec086f_n.jpgUntitled by c w, on Flickr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The native lens will make the A9 the number one platform for sports photographers for the foreseeable future

Correction: it opens the door for Sony into a field where they couldn't compete at all so far. I strongly doubt that even Sony can produce a sufficient number of these lenses in short order to satisfy demand if everyone who currently uses the equivalent on Canon or Nikon were to switch.

 

I do admit that there are areas where select mirrorless cameras have an advantage (totally silent shooting is one, video another) but even the A9 doesn't offer that much more than a Nikon D5 or Canon 1DXII when it comes to sports shooting (20fps are nice on occasion but also tend to fill the card rather quickly and the wider AF coverage certainly counts as an advantage too).

 

Which is not necessarily my choice if I were a sports shooter. I'd go with Micro 4/3, probably.

What, not a Leica M9 with a Noctilux 50mm? Or an Apo-Telyt 135/4 for more reach :D?

 

is the official death of the DSLR

As someone who uses both DSLR and mirrorless, I still prefer the optical viewfinder over an EVF in almost every situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what they said about Japanese cars in NASCAR. Now look.

 

Let me know when you see an actual Japanese car in Nascar. Or any other brand for that matter. NASCAR died for me when they stopped racing stock cars. They've homogenized the cars to the point of absurdity. Jap brands, maybe. But it's not about the brands any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, not a Leica M9 with a Noctilux 50mm? Or an Apo-Telyt 135/4 for more reach :D?

Very droll, Humphrey!

 

As someone who uses both DSLR and mirrorless, I still prefer the optical viewfinder over an EVF in almost every situation.

It's true that we all have different tastes. But there's no way I'd pick the viewfinder from an APS-C DSLR over a decent EVF. I hear that the VF of the Leica S is amazing, and that the EVF of the SL is even better, but I would have to see them both for myself. I have a Pentax 645 and its VF is superior to those of 35mm SLRs - but that's kind of obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it time. A lot of sideline gear is owned by an agency, which will be slow to adopt new technology. It's the money and investment recovery. A short burst at 20 fps is likely to produce an optimum combination of expressions, hand and arm positions that slower rates may miss. Tracking is far more positive in modern mirrorless cameras since the coverage is better by a factor of 3 or 4, and the blackout time is much shorter. Face it! DSLR technology is well past peak, and mirrorless is just starting out and already competitive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am lucky owner of all 3 brands , can't see much difference in pictures. But I can tell 1D3 body was most comfortable to hold. Sony with kit lens good for travel, it is light .

When you put 400/2.8 on camera, weight advantage become a moot point , you want well balanced body, big one. And it is very hard to beat big, bright, real time view optical viewfinder, that's why Sony needs 20 frames per second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you put 400/2.8 on camera, weight advantage become a moot point , you want well balanced body, big one. And

 

In that basis, the camera attached to the Palomar telescope would be the size of a school bus ;)

 

I was taught, from the beginning, to support the camera with the left hand, steady and shoot with the right. It doesn't matter whether I use a Leica with a 35 mm lens or a Sony A7 with a 100-400 zoom. If the lens outweighs the camera you support the lens at the center of gravity. most people using a 400/2.8 lens will support it with a monopod or a tripod and gimbal, using the foot provided with the lens.

 

A Sony A9 does 20 fps because it can do 20 fps (and probably more) because it uses an EVF. The finder on a DSLR is big and bright if the light is big and bright. An EVF can be used in light too dim to see the camera controls, even with manual focus. The last is hard with a DSLR even in daylight, with a shallow DOF. I used a DSLR for more years than I care to count, but I'm not going back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Coming a little late to this discussion, and my comment isn't about the new Sony 400/2.8 anyway. It's about replacing all those DSLRs on the sidelines of your favorite sport. The problem I see that the Sony has, and likely will always have, is there is still no substitute for a good optical viewfinder. I find it difficult to make fine-tuned discriminatingly sharp images when using a digital VF or a rear screen. Focus peaking is nice, but it doesn't get down to the fine details the way an optical viewfinder can. I find that, with my Sony, I'm almost always having to boost magnification to make sure my subject is critically sharp. But these are still, unmoving subjects. Boosted magnification would never work for sports where you have to follow the action. So, I'm not quite willing to count DSLRs -- especially full-framed ones -- out just yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

As someone who uses both DSLR and mirrorless, I still prefer the optical viewfinder over an EVF in almost every situation.

 

Dieter, my friend, I don't understand this. Have you used the a9 or a7RIII, with the bright OLED EVF, no latency, WYSIWYG exposure preview. The a9 even has no shutter black-out. When I pick up my 5DS-R, it seems archaic. I have to think about the exposure, where the Sony hits me over the head if it's too dark or too bright. Just curious what you like about flopping mirrors in the VF. (I mostly shoot silent, but you can add a sound, if that's a tactil thing that you like).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming a little late to this discussion, and my comment isn't about the new Sony 400/2.8 anyway. It's about replacing all those DSLRs on the sidelines of your favorite sport. The problem I see that the Sony has, and likely will always have, is there is still no substitute for a good optical viewfinder. I find it difficult to make fine-tuned discriminatingly sharp images when using a digital VF or a rear screen. Focus peaking is nice, but it doesn't get down to the fine details the way an optical viewfinder can. I find that, with my Sony, I'm almost always having to boost magnification to make sure my subject is critically sharp. But these are still, unmoving subjects. Boosted magnification would never work for sports where you have to follow the action. So, I'm not quite willing to count DSLRs -- especially full-framed ones -- out just yet.

 

I don't get it. Why do you guys keep saying this? Have you shot the a9? You're not required to "boost magnification". I shoot bird-in-flight, which are much tougher to follow than action on a field. I much prefer the a9 to my prior Canons. My keeper rate is through the roof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The only thing missing is a matching 1.4x TC. I really don't see the point of a separate 600/4 once you have a TC with the 400/2.8. IMO.

 

 

Sony has had a 1.4x and a 2.0x teleconverters for about a year now. They are fantastic. Here's a shot with the FE 2.0x teleconverter on my FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS:

 

42718810475_295c736a45_b.jpgLesser Goldfinch On Thistle by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

On a prime, it's going to be even better at 800mm. As a bird shooter, the only thing missing with the new lens is that I won't be shooting at 1000mm or 1200mm. Still, I pre-ordered my 400mm on the first day possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You boost magnification in the Sony because you can. Conversely, it is not an option with an optical finder. I don't find peaking is accurate enough for manual focusing with a Sony, but that's not even possible with an OVF. Why is this important for action and wildlife photography, where you rely on accurate auto focus?

 

The A9 is at the top of the game for AF accuracy, speed, and predictive focus. The EVF is as bright and clear as a piece of glass, and there is no flicker or blackout at 1/100 second or faster. With a refresh rate of 120 fps, there is only 1/4 the strobe effect you see with video - it's actually not visible at all. Eye focus? We'll see what Nikon reveals in their hyped mirrorless announcement in August. For now, it belongs to Sony.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming a little late to this discussion, and my comment isn't about the new Sony 400/2.8 anyway. It's about replacing all those DSLRs on the sidelines of your favorite sport. The problem I see that the Sony has, and likely will always have, is there is still no substitute for a good optical viewfinder. I find it difficult to make fine-tuned discriminatingly sharp images when using a digital VF or a rear screen. Focus peaking is nice, but it doesn't get down to the fine details the way an optical viewfinder can. I find that, with my Sony, I'm almost always having to boost magnification to make sure my subject is critically sharp. But these are still, unmoving subjects. Boosted magnification would never work for sports where you have to follow the action. So, I'm not quite willing to count DSLRs -- especially full-framed ones -- out just yet.

 

I don't think that you've shot the a9. The OLED EVF is far superior to any of my Canons' OVF. I don't remember the number, but it's like 3.2 or 3.8mp. I use AF 100% of the time, mainly shooting wildlife, including birds-in-flight.

 

When you're thinking of a "good optical viewfinder" are you thinking ground glass on a Hasselblad? Well yes, that might be better for MF, but let something start to move and it's a whole other ballgame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you used the a9 or a7RIII, with the bright OLED EVF, no latency, WYSIWYG exposure preview.

Only in the store - my personal experience is limited to an R1, NEX-6, A7, (and sold) and actively with an A7II, and just recently, an A7RII. Hence I don't have a mirrorless that allows blackout-free viewing. And aside from the option (with caveats) to shoot silent with the A7RII, the A7 and A7II are at least as noisy as my D810 or D500. Which leaves WYSIWYG as the only remaining EVF advantage. Until recently, I've shot mostly with "settings effect OFF" as a left-over from using manual focus adapted lenses that gave me the "ON" effect anyway; I haven't yet fully explored the differences of that parameter setting when using native AF lenses (especially on AF performance). And when using manual focus, I found focus peaking to be utterly useless and had to rely on magnification to assure proper focus placement. Since I don't shoot JPEG, exposure preview isn't as useful as it is made out to be - the display of an histogram based on the RAW image would be more helpful to create an image optimized for post-processing. Yet that's an option no one offers.

 

My main issue with the EVFs I encountered so far is rather personal though - I wear photochromic glasses that have never hindered me to see a clear image in an optical viewfinder but turn out to be a major issue when using an EVF - even cranked up to maximum brightness, the EVF is just too dark. So mirrorless actually creates a problem for me that wasn't there before.

 

But even in situations where my glasses don't interfere negatively, there's still something of a disconnect with the scene in front of the camera when viewed through an EVF vs looking through the optical viewfinder of an DSLR. One reason I never got along with a rangefinder was that there's too much of a disconnect and literally no hint of what the actual image will look like.

 

I don't shoot much action with my Sony, so I don't know how lag time may affect how I shoot. It doesn't matter much anyway because when I see it in the viewfinder it means I missed the shot - not matter if it is mirrorless or DSLR.

 

As to the near-mythical performance of the A9 - sorry, I have little use for a 24MP FX camera and don't have $4.5K to blow because the A9 has allegedly such a great EVF.

David, reading a bit between the lines, you actually seem to be agreeing with me since you only mention the A7RIII and A9 - which I take to mean that you don't consider the EVF performance of the mirrorless cameras I do own that noteworthy either. With DSLRs, I don't have to purchase the highest level ones to get the best viewfinder (as Sony does) - as long as a pentaprism is involved, they all deliver the same viewing experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only in the store - my personal experience is limited to an R1, NEX-6, A7, (and sold) and actively with an A7II, and just recently, an A7RII. Hence I don't have a mirrorless that allows blackout-free viewing. And aside from the option (with caveats) to shoot silent with the A7RII, the A7 and A7II are at least as noisy as my D810 or D500. Which leaves WYSIWYG as the only remaining EVF advantage. Until recently, I've shot mostly with "settings effect OFF" as a left-over from using manual focus adapted lenses that gave me the "ON" effect anyway; I haven't yet fully explored the differences of that parameter setting when using native AF lenses (especially on AF performance). And when using manual focus, I found focus peaking to be utterly useless and had to rely on magnification to assure proper focus placement. Since I don't shoot JPEG, exposure preview isn't as useful as it is made out to be - the display of an histogram based on the RAW image would be more helpful to create an image optimized for post-processing. Yet that's an option no one offers.

 

My main issue with the EVFs I encountered so far is rather personal though - I wear photochromic glasses that have never hindered me to see a clear image in an optical viewfinder but turn out to be a major issue when using an EVF - even cranked up to maximum brightness, the EVF is just too dark. So mirrorless actually creates a problem for me that wasn't there before.

 

But even in situations where my glasses don't interfere negatively, there's still something of a disconnect with the scene in front of the camera when viewed through an EVF vs looking through the optical viewfinder of an DSLR. One reason I never got along with a rangefinder was that there's too much of a disconnect and literally no hint of what the actual image will look like.

 

I don't shoot much action with my Sony, so I don't know how lag time may affect how I shoot. It doesn't matter much anyway because when I see it in the viewfinder it means I missed the shot - not matter if it is mirrorless or DSLR.

 

As to the near-mythical performance of the A9 - sorry, I have little use for a 24MP FX camera and don't have $4.5K to blow because the A9 has allegedly such a great EVF.

David, reading a bit between the lines, you actually seem to be agreeing with me since you only mention the A7RIII and A9 - which I take to mean that you don't consider the EVF performance of the mirrorless cameras I do own that noteworthy either. With DSLRs, I don't have to purchase the highest level ones to get the best viewfinder (as Sony does) - as long as a pentaprism is involved, they all deliver the same viewing experience.

 

Well, thanks for making it clear that you haven't shot the latest Sony bodies, so you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the OLED of the a9 and the a7RIII. It seems that you haven't compared silent shooting to a D810 or a D500, so it must be worthless. Those of us that shoot RAW only compensate for the exposure preview's lack of dynamic range. I have my Zebra warnings set at 110% so that they're not prematurely warning me of possible over exposure. With the a9 or a7RIII, if the EVF is too dark, it's because you're under-exposing. We're not shooting film anymore, so expose to the right and you'll see clearly, even in low light.

 

I don't wear glasses and I don't wear sunglasses when shooting. Why would you do that? I believe that you don't get an accurate view of the scene with sunglasses on.

Edited by dcstep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the OLED of the a9 and the a7RIII

And where did I give the impression that I was talking about the a7RIII or A9? Why do you care anyway that I prefer an OVF over an EVF?

It seems that you haven't compared silent shooting to a D810 or a D500, so it must be worthless.

You may want to read what I wrote before jumping to conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A RAW image is not optimized for anything - it is what it is. However RAW files can be overexposed, and the real-time histogram (also on review) tells you immediately if something is overexposed. RAW files in the A7ii and A7Rii are limited to 12 bit depth if hight speed or silent shutter is used. In the A9, A7iii and A7Riii, all files are 14 bit, regardless of the shutter setting.

 

The A7ii and A7Rii have the same viewfinder - 2.86 MP. Both the A9 and A7Riii (not the A7iii) have a 3.86 MP finder - 50% better than previous models. That, plus dual memory cards, better AF, and 5x the battery life, were enough to persuade me to retire my A7Rii for the model 3. The A9 remains my choice for speed.

 

The silent shutter option is just that. The loudest sound the camera makes is the aperture closing. Unlike AFS focusing for Nikon, AF is totally silent for Sony and Zeiss lenses. You lose direct manual focusing, but focus-by-wire a small price to pay, and far more precise if used correctly (in the Goldilocks speed zone).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...