Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3 OSS G - First Impressions

I ordered this lens on 6/15 this year, and received it about two weeks ago. Other than a photo of the moon I posted earlier this week, I haven't had time to do a test run until today. No wildlife, but some throroughly tamed plants and flowers at the Chicago Botanic Garden, my favorite haunt. Closeups at a distance (well out of danger).

 

I'm impressed with the sharpness of this lens, perhaps because it is a G and not a GM. Sony seems to have their stuff together, and their zoom lenses are hard to beat. The bokeh is also smooth and uncolored, as witnessed by the round OOF highlights, without visible onion skin. Autofocus is fast and accurate. Image stabilization is highly effective, before and during the exposure. Both focusing and zooming are internal, so the lens doesn't "grow" in use or sag when carried. The rings move freely, with only slight damping.

 

The 200-600 is about 4" longer than the 100-400/4.5-5.6 and 5" longer than the 70-200/4. By comparison, it is a beast to carry, which is one reason (besides the extra $11K) that I don't aspire to the magnificent 600/4. My first purchase was a Really Right Stuff lens foot, which is Arca compatible and has a hole for a mil-spec RRS strap (Magpul). I wouldn't want to subject the camera mount to such strain, and this method means assemblage is reasonably well balanced (slightly lens-heavy) and the camera bears only its own weight. The foot makes a convenient handle to lift the lens, and keep it from bouncing as you walk. It fits almost perfectly in a LowePro 13" lens case, 1/2" oversized but the lid can be easily closed leaving a slight bulge.

 

Sony A7Riii + Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3 @ 535 mm, 1/600 @ f/8, ISO 400 (hand held)

 

One tangential comment...

What does "G" mean these days? Minolta didn't spray this "Gold" label onto every lens they released, but it almost appears that way with Sony. It has even appeared on compact Cybershot cameras with unimpressive specs. Introducing the GM label kind of indicates (to me anyway) that G wasn't really meaningful anymore. Does "G" mean anything now, or is it just a meaningless marketing label?

One tangential comment...

What does "G" mean these days? Minolta didn't spray this "Gold" label onto every lens they released, but it almost appears that way with Sony. It has even appeared on compact Cybershot cameras with unimpressive specs. Introducing the GM label kind of indicates (to me anyway) that G wasn't really meaningful anymore. Does "G" mean anything now, or is it just a meaningless marketing label?

 

"G" is their second highest quality level. The "GM" stands for G-Master, which is their highest level. The image quality of the G series is often very close to the GM, but the build quality is a step down. Compare the prices of similar lenses, like the 85mm G vs the GM and the differences are apparent. I been very please with my 12-24mm and 24-105mm G lenses, but the 600mm and 100-400mm GM are on a different level, clearly and obviously.

...

 

The 200-600 is about 4" longer than the 100-400/4.5-5.6 and 5" longer than the 70-200/4. By comparison, it is a beast to carry, which is one reason (besides the extra $11K) that I don't aspire to the magnificent 600/4. My first purchase was a Really Right Stuff lens foot, which is Arca compatible and has a hole for a mil-spec RRS strap (Magpul). I wouldn't want to subject the camera mount to such strain, and this method means assemblage is reasonably well balanced (slightly lens-heavy) and the camera bears only its own weight. The foot makes a convenient handle to lift the lens, and keep it from bouncing as you walk. It fits almost perfectly in a LowePro 13" lens case, 1/2" oversized but the lid can be easily closed leaving a slight bulge.

 

...

 

I wouldn't characterize the 200-600mm as a "beast" to carry. Don't buy it if you're not going to hand hold it for bird-in-flight. I shot a couple of shots with a friend's yesterday and it's very nimble. I was lighter than the Nikon 200-500mm rig that another friend had. The owner of the one that I tried is a woman and she was having no trouble. The whole point of the smaller aperture is to make the lens manageable to hand hold.

 

What is its minimum focus distance? Is it useful as a macro lens? Try shooting some of those fruit, up close. Really though, let's see some action, like birds in flight, dogs running at the camera, etc.

 

Handheld 600mm shot from yesterday:

Killdeer Flies Close by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

It's all that it's supposed to be.

The minimum focusing distance is not great - 8' (2.4 m), with a magnification of 0.66 (1:1.5). I tried to qualify the "beast" assignation by comparing it to the de facto long lens in most kits, a 70-200. From a practical point of view, it is not easily swapped out while standing. It would be easier to carry a second body if you wanted to alternate with shorter lenses. I will not be using it on a motorized gimbal, nor hand-held while shooting video. IS can only do so much.

 

That afternoon there were no birds in the park, not even the ubiquitous Canada geese. The two big air shows in the area have come and gone, while I was working other gigs. I have enough cute photos of squirrels (from my newspaper days) to last a lifetime. My main experience with wild life was at 100 to 400 meters, after which they became still life.

 

Kidding aside, shooting flowers is a good way to demonstrate sharpness, use of a shallow DOF to isolate the subject, and the quality of the OOF areas. Next May, in the great finch migration, I may have other opportunities. The local forest preserves attract both finches (and other small birds on their way north) and Cooper's hawks (attracted to the finches). I don't think 600 mm is appropriate for dogs running at the camera. My son owns an accomplished lens-licker, but a 24-70 (GM) is a better choice, and tracks perfectly.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

...

 

Kidding aside, shooting flowers is a good way to demonstrate sharpness, use of a shallow DOF to isolate the subject, and the quality of the OOF areas. Next May, in the great finch migration, I may have other opportunities. The local forest preserves attract both finches (and other small birds on their way north) and Cooper's hawks (attracted to the finches). I don't think 600 mm is appropriate for dogs running at the camera. My son owns an accomplished lens-licker, but a 24-70 (GM) is a better choice, and tracks perfectly.

 

I like to use the 100-400mm, at it's wider end, for dog running at the camera. Clearly, I work further away. I like the compression of the longer lenses. A 70-200mm is also excellent, the way that I use them

 

Catch BIF images of finches is a tall order. I seem to only get them, right as they take off. Cooper's are a different matter. One of my favorite raptors:

 

Cooper's Hawk - In Flight by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

560mm, handheld with the 100-400mm.

Finches and warblers find great comfort in heavy undergrowth during their migration through Chicago. I've approached them within 10 feet on many occasions. Perhaps they fear the hawks loitering in the canopy more than an old dude with a camera? The deer won't run if you swat them with a stick ;)

Finches and warblers find great comfort in heavy undergrowth during their migration through Chicago. I've approached them within 10 feet on many occasions. Perhaps they fear the hawks loitering in the canopy more than an old dude with a camera? The deer won't run if you swat them with a stick ;)

 

Same here, except the deer aren't so tame. Our goldfinches and house finches nest here. I get them out in the open when they gorge on the thistle weed blossoms.

Finch Fight #7 by David Stephens, on Flickr

I like to use the 100-400mm, at it's wider end, for dog running at the camera. Clearly, I work further away. I like the compression of the longer lenses. A 70-200mm is also excellent, the way that I use them

I have a 100-400. It's a great lens, and focuses as close as 1 meter. However it's not ideal for my son's goldie, appropriately named "Pixel," who thinks he's a 90# lap dog. Some of the best shots are with a 40 mm lens.

 

But I digress. Although the 200-600 is relatively slow, the DOF is narrow enough to get good isolation (and compression). I think your point is asking "how good is the tracking." I'll try to come up with an example, even if it's a car racing down my side street, trying to beat traffic on the main drag.

This about the smallest subject area you can get with the 200-600, about 6"x 4". I had to step back until I could get the rose in focus (565 mm). I didn't notice the critter until much later, at my computer.

 

I have a 100-400. It's a great lens, and focuses as close as 1 meter. However it's not ideal for my son's goldie, appropriately named "Pixel," who thinks he's a 90# lap dog. Some of the best shots are with a 40 mm lens.

 

....

 

You might check you MFD. Mine actually focuses at 22", much to my surprise. With 25mm extension tubes, it'll get into 18". I don't know if I just got lucky or if the published MFD is from a prototype.

The 200-600 will focus down to 1.5 meters, manually. Maybe it's a Sony thing.

 

I have a set of Fotodiox automatic extension rings for the Sony, and they work quite well with zoom lenses, except zooming is no longer even close to parfocal. That said, I'm aiming for closeups (people) at 70 feet, not 70 inches. Not having to wade in the lily pond is a plus, not a necessity.

I though I would pique a little interest in the Sony 200-600 by showing how I will use it most of the time, in full video attire.

 

The camera is a Sony A7iii in a Tilta cage and base plate. The rails hold motors for the zoom and focus, and a large (176 WH) battery to drive everything for up to 8 hours. I do not show the Atomos Ninja V monitor/recorder, with will be attached to the top of the T handle. It's not practical to use the lens foot in this configuration, and the battery helps balance the rig. In use, the rig is perfectly balanced, with a spring mechanism to counterbalance the high center of gravity. It will stay at any angle without locking the tilt. It's one way to convert a 2 lb camera into a 16 pound video camera.

 

 

Besides support, motorization and power, the cage protects the delicate HDMI and USB connections from strain and unnecessary wear.

Not necessary. Here they film that indoors ;)

 

Seriously, most zooms in scene are short and smooth, and nearly impossible to achieve turning the ring by hand. Just touching the lens, especially a long telephoto, jiggles enough to spoil the clip. The same is true for focusing. AF is only used for sports and action photography, or momentarily for most other situations. Manual focusing takes a little longer, but the transition can be covered by B roll. True video lenses have long-throw manual focus rings, which can be marked ahead of time. A 600 mm, cinematic zoom lens would cost more than a new Porsche.

 

Focus-by-wire is not determinative, but you can use a hybrid method with AF which reverts to manual once focus lock is achieved (Sony DMF mode). You press the rear AF button, then touch up the focus manually before releasing the button. Most of the time I record externally. For internal recording, disconnect the shutter release from AF activation in the menu.

Edited September 22, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

On the slim chance someone is interested in video, I wish to elaborate a bit. I have a big job coming up in a couple of weeks, so I'm making sure everything is attached and working.

 

You will notice that the end of the lens is supported on the rods. That is done for several reasons. The lens is far to heavy to dangle from the lens mount alone, especially if you pan or tilt rapidly. Secondly, it ties the rods and lens together so they can't spread under the torque of the drive motors. Finally, it is necessary to strap the lens to the support with a zip-tie, as a further anchor against the motor torque. Although the motors are powerful, they follow motion of the controllers on the pan handle accurately, as fast or slow as you care to operate them, from creep to crash.

 

That complicates changing lenses in the field, but this will probably be a relatively permanent configuration. I have other bodies to fill in the gaps, as well as a Super-35 video camera.

They said main advantage of mirrorless being lighter and smaller:( And in body image stabilization will let you shoot without tripod:)

IBIS and OSS will handle ordinary camera shake very well. I have some very sharp images at 1/30 sec and 400 mm. Neither help much with longer term variations, which must be controlled when shooting video. A tripod and good fluid head are essential tools. I have a shoulder pad for the rig, and for run-and-gun stuff a little bobbing is tolerable. That's usually done at a focal length of 50 mm or shorter. I use a motorized gimbal for ultra-smooth hand-held work, for which I go cage-less and use a 25mm or 40 mm lens.

 

"Mirrorless being lighter and smaller" is a mantra uttered mostly by people who know it is a myth. I bought in for the image quality and flexibility, and never wavered from that concept.

Can't wait to see some samples. Impressive rig, Ed.

I'm kind of limited for examples. Most will be school-age or professional musicians, hence non-publishable (or closely restricted). I did "Peter and the Wolf" this weekend, but the animals were played on instruments ;)

 

I need much less equipment for a one-camera shoot, especially of action or wildlife (sometimes indistinguishable). There are no live zooms, and AF usually works. If there's something in the foreground (brush or weeds), you revert to manual focus. Flexibility is where a real video camera excels. I can attach a Sony FS5 to this rig, instead of an A7iii, with a shoulder mount if I feel really ambitious.

 

I see a lot of hawks, but seldom in a predictable location. There is a blue heron rookery just north of town, if I'm willing to risk ticks and chiggers to get a little closer.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

I see a lot of hawks, but seldom in a predictable location. There is a blue heron rookery just north of town, if I'm willing to risk ticks and chiggers to get a little closer.

 

Permethrin is your friend. Unlike Deet, you treat your clothes with Permethrin, particularly boots, pants legs, hat exterior, etc. Spray your boots with Deet and ticks will laugh as they walk over it 8-hours after application. Spray with Permethrin and ticks will roll off, even thirty-days later. You still need Deet on the back of your hands and neck, but you'll be close to impervious.

I took the 200-600 out for a spin today, with the best "action" figure I could muster - Pixel the Goldie - chasing a ball at full tilt. I had "animal" eye focus turned on, with the locking center-spot option. The camera had no problem finding Pixel's eyes while still, but object tracking took over once the chase began. I took over 500 images in the space of 20 minutes or so, in 20 fps bursts, coming toward the camera. All but one or two were in focus on the face and eyes. You can see from this image that the DOF is only a few inches.

 

I am very pleased with this lens. I'm confident it will do everything I need of it.

 

 

Sony A9 + Sony 200-600/5.6-6.3, 1/2000 @ f/6.3, 454 mm

I took the 200-600 out for a spin today, with the best "action" figure I could muster - Pixel the Goldie - chasing a ball at full tilt. I had "animal" eye focus turned on, with the locking center-spot option. The camera had no problem finding Pixel's eyes while still, but object tracking took over once the chase began. I took over 500 images in the space of 20 minutes or so, in 20 fps bursts, coming toward the camera. All but one or two were in focus on the face and eyes. You can see from this image that the DOF is only a few inches.

...

 

 

 

Were you using Animal Eye Detect?

 

Could you give us a tight crop of the head, so we can really see the focus?

This is a 100% (pixel-pixel) crop from the 24 MP original. Eye Detect (Animal, q.v., FW 6.00) AF was turned on, but once he began to run, the only indication was a medium, green box centered on the face. Wide Area focus works, but it a little slower to acquire than spot focus. Once focus is locked on, there's no substantial difference between modes. There was motion blur at the default speed, 1/500. I bumped that to 1/2000 for this image, which raised the ISO to 4000. There is some noise visible.

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

Looks like the focus was on the nose instead of the eyes. Do you have firmware 6.0?

As I noted above, I'm using version 6.00 with Animal Eye Detection turned on. From what I see, the left eye is in focus, better than the nose or right eye. Eye detection was displayed in the viewfinder before the ball toss, but once Pixel started running, the indication changed to object tracking. Remember, the dog was running directly toward the camera at nearly 30 mph, not flying sideways. Perhaps I should have tracked the ball, if that would be more convincing, but it wasn't particularly photogenic after receiving the dog's repeated attention ;)