Long Term Review of the Sony FE 200-600 f5.6-6.3 G OSS

Karl Egressy wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:I think Sony left some money on the table with this lens. I would have rather they put two motors in and paid a higher price for it. I'm not sure I'd want the weight penalty of making it a f5.6, but that extra motor would've been appreciated. I'm hoping they come out with a 500f4 at a not too crazy price.

Actually they have a 500 f 4.0 out already. I have an a6600 camera. I'm wondering if the 200-600 lens would work well with this little camera. The combo would be front heavy for sure. Right now I only have the 70-350 lens but it is super light and sharp, focuses fast but I have problem with the reach.

No they don't.  The Sony 500 f/4 is A-mount, not FE mount.  In other words the old Minolta mount.  You would need to use an adapter.

Karl Egressy wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:I think Sony left some money on the table with this lens. I would have rather they put two motors in and paid a higher price for it. I'm not sure I'd want the weight penalty of making it a f5.6, but that extra motor would've been appreciated. I'm hoping they come out with a 500f4 at a not too crazy price.

Actually they have a 500 f 4.0 out already. I have an a6600 camera. I'm wondering if the 200-600 lens would work well with this little camera. The combo would be front heavy for sure. Right now I only have the 70-350 lens but it is super light and sharp, focuses fast but I have problem with the reach.

See EJ's comments re: 500f4. I used the A6400 with the 200-600 and it worked well, so I would expect the 6600 to work similarly. I disliked the form factor so much of the A6xxx series I sold the A6400 and got the A7R4 to get the reach.

Hello all,

Mark Galer has published a new video on his youtube channel regarding sony's telephoto lenses and there are few photographers that reported the R4+200-600 issue. Mark says he has reported this issue to Sony Australia and the product specialist from Sony Australia will escalate this to Sony Japan (pls. check the comments on his youtube post).

I've had similar problems.

Took my Sony 200-600 and 600 f4 along with a9 and a7r4 bodies to Kenya in February, Took a few thousand images with various combinations of these. I found that almost 80-90% of my shots with the a7r4 and 200-600 were off. They look good on a small laptop but on a big 4K monitor at 1:1 there is a subtle OOF look, Initially I thought this was motion blur but even on the shots at high speed, they look blurry - it is very slight but renders the image useless from my POV. It seems that the lens focuses behind the subject.

I tested the rig again this past month at the local beach where the nesting birds arrive every  year. Same thing - a7r4 with 200-600 misses the focus most of the time, even with slow moving oyster catchers and sometimes even ones that were simply sitting on the nest. However, when the focus is indeed acquired correctly, the sheer size and resolution of the image is breath-taking. There is an 'immersive' quality to these.

I then shot with the a9 and 200-600 - night and day difference, including nailing the eye of the fish that the common tern was carrying in its beak in mid-flight. However, since I end up cropping the image almost all the time, the lost pixels do reduce that impact.

I am not saying that every photo needs to be 60+ MP in size, but there is something unique about having so many pixels on a bird and seeing it blow up on your monitor is almost magical. Not every MF user prints huge, but there is a reason people buy high megapixel cameras.

In contrast, the a7r4 with the 600 f4 produces much better results, much higher percentage of keepers - not quite the same as the a9 which is expected, but way better than with the 200-600.

Pradeep

Well I did some more testing and have now sold my a7rIV - my a9mkII won every time by quite a margin I will just use 1 camera for now and see what Sony bring out next perhaps a a9mkIIi with 40mp isn't too far away

Rob.

While I too have noticed far superior AF with the A9 compared to the A7R4 with the 200-600, I wonder how much of the complaints are tainted by atmospheric effects/smaller pixels? In astronomy I look at arcsec/px when choosing a telescope and camera combination. Where I live and do astrophotography, I rarely get better than 2-3 arcsec/px. Shooting at 600mm I calculate:
A9 is 5.91 um to give 2.03 arcsec/px
A7R4 is 3.73 um to give 1.28 arcsec/px
What all that means is that unless conditions are good, the A7R4 might look bad because it can’t resolve to it’s full potential due to the air in front of it. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can chime in on this possibility.

Heat haze really does mess things up , my bif tests were all in the back garden so between 40 / 70 yds and around 70 degree angle temp was around 60 / 80 f
morning and afternoon .
I even tested my Olympus EM-1X 300 f4 pro at the same time I really like that camera alas it too has gone neither came close enough to the a9mkII to warrant keeping them .

Rob.

Scott Fairbairn wrote:....................
What all that means is that unless conditions are good, the A7R4 might look bad because it can’t resolve to it’s full potential due to the air in front of it. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can chime in on this possibility.

Agree. I too thought there were other factors - heat haze, motion blur, poor technique, law of averages etc. However, having looked at my own pictures from many different days, under a variety shooting conditions, and having taken thousands of images, I cannot but conclude that there is something wrong with this particular combo.

If anything else was the issue, then the a7r4 with 600 f4 at 600mm wide open should have resulted in the same focus issues under the SAME conditions. That is not the case at all. Shooting the same subject with the same camera body at the same time of the day under the same lighting produces completely different results with the two lenses. The settings too are the same. I have also tried the various combinations of AF tracking, IBIS etc that have been suggested on various fora.

What is also true is that a very small number of lenses perhaps do not suffer from this problem or it is minimal. 

I am keeping the lens and the camera since there is always hope that a firmware upgrade will resolve the problem. Also, when used with different lenses, in good light, the a7r4 produces detail that the a9 cannot match. The 200-600 also shines when paired with the a9. Thus, both still serve a very useful purpose, for my needs at least.

Pradeep

Primus wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:....................
What all that means is that unless conditions are good, the A7R4 might look bad because it can’t resolve to it’s full potential due to the air in front of it. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can chime in on this possibility.

Agree. I too thought there were other factors - heat haze, motion blur, poor technique, law of averages etc. However, having looked at my own pictures from many different days, under a variety shooting conditions, and having taken thousands of images, I cannot but conclude that there is something wrong with this particular combo.

If anything else was the issue, then the a7r4 with 600 f4 at 600mm wide open should have resulted in the same focus issues under the SAME conditions. That is not the case at all. Shooting the same subject with the same camera body at the same time of the day under the same lighting produces completely different results with the two lenses. The settings too are the same. I have also tried the various combinations of AF tracking, IBIS etc that have been suggested on various fora.

What is also true is that a very small number of lenses perhaps do not suffer from this problem or it is minimal. 

I am keeping the lens and the camera since there is always hope that a firmware upgrade will resolve the problem. Also, when used with different lenses, in good light, the a7r4 produces detail that the a9 cannot match. The 200-600 also shines when paired with the a9. Thus, both still serve a very useful purpose, for my needs at least.

Pradeep

Under the same conditions, shooting a 600 f/4 vs a 600 f/6.3 is not the same from the perspective of the AF system.  The former collects about 2.7 times as much light.  And add to that that the 600 f/4 has dual linear AF motors where the 200-600 only has a single motor and you have two completely different AF scenarios from the standpoint of the camera.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Primus wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:....................
What all that means is that unless conditions are good, the A7R4 might look bad because it can’t resolve to it’s full potential due to the air in front of it. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can chime in on this possibility.

Agree. I too thought there were other factors - heat haze, motion blur, poor technique, law of averages etc. However, having looked at my own pictures from many different days, under a variety shooting conditions, and having taken thousands of images, I cannot but conclude that there is something wrong with this particular combo.

If anything else was the issue, then the a7r4 with 600 f4 at 600mm wide open should have resulted in the same focus issues under the SAME conditions. That is not the case at all. Shooting the same subject with the same camera body at the same time of the day under the same lighting produces completely different results with the two lenses. The settings too are the same. I have also tried the various combinations of AF tracking, IBIS etc that have been suggested on various fora.

What is also true is that a very small number of lenses perhaps do not suffer from this problem or it is minimal. 

I am keeping the lens and the camera since there is always hope that a firmware upgrade will resolve the problem. Also, when used with different lenses, in good light, the a7r4 produces detail that the a9 cannot match. The 200-600 also shines when paired with the a9. Thus, both still serve a very useful purpose, for my needs at least.

Pradeep

Under the same conditions, shooting a 600 f/4 vs a 600 f/6.3 is not the same from the perspective of the AF system.  The former collects about 2.7 times as much light.  And add to that that the 600 f/4 has dual linear AF motors where the 200-600 only has a single motor and you have two completely different AF scenarios from the standpoint of the camera.

Just for my technical understanding.  Does a zoom design affect AF speed?

I just read this very interesting article about the A9 II AF + 4/600 which has a lot of very positive things to say about the combo incl. with the 2x.

http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/s ... pressions/

A quote: "The Sony A9 II can focus all the way down to f/13 and does not show a noticeable hit in AF when attaching a TC to a prime lens".

The author mentions prime lenses in this quote. Is the 4/600 +2x still so good because of the better AF motor in the lens or can a prime always focus faster? Would a theoretical 4/200-600 with the same AF motor focus as fast as the prime or does a zoom always pay a price in AF speed?

If Sony built a faster AF motor into the 5.6-6.3/200-600 lens, would it be as fast as the 4/600? Does the available light affect the A9 II AF system that much? I think with a 2nd AF motor the lens would be a GM lens but probably noticeably more expensive.

Just curious

No it isn't necessarily true that a prime will focus faster than a zoom although it is harder to make a zoom that is as fast since the optical formula is generally much more complex. But in practice, with most telephoto lenses, fixed focal length lenses focus faster due to the simpler design and usually they are a stop faster. For very exotic zooms like the Nikon 180-400 f/4, it focuses every bit as fast as a Nikon 500 f/4. There are also examples where zooms are faster than fixed lenses. For example most 70-200 f/2.8 lenses are faster than fixed focal length lense in the focal length range of the zoom. That is because of design choices made as the 70-200 is made with the sports photographer in mind. Under most conditions cameras and lenses specifically targeted to the sports photographer will be the fastest.

So, it depends!

E.J. Peiker wrote:No it isn't necessarily true that a prime will focus faster than a zoom although it is harder to make a zoom that is as fast since the optical formula is generally much more complex.  But in practice, with most telephoto lenses, fixed focal length lenses focus faster due to the simpler design and usually they are a stop faster.  For very exotic zooms like the Nikon 180-400 f/4, it focuses every bit as fast as a Nikon 500 f/4.  There are also examples where zooms are faster than fixed lenses.  For example most 70-200 f/2.8 lenses are faster than fixed focal length lense in the focal length range of the zoom.  That is because of design choices made as the 70-200 is made with the sports photographer in mind.  Under most conditions cameras and lenses specifically targeted to the sports photographer will be the fastest.

So, it depends!

Thanks, this is very interesting.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Primus wrote:
....................
If anything else was the issue, then the a7r4 with 600 f4 at 600mm wide open should have resulted in the same focus issues under the SAME conditions. That is not the case at all. Shooting the same subject with the same camera body at the same time of the day under the same lighting produces completely different results with the two lenses. The settings too are the same. I have also tried the various combinations of AF tracking, IBIS etc that have been suggested on various fora.


Pradeep

Under the same conditions, shooting a 600 f/4 vs a 600 f/6.3 is not the same from the perspective of the AF system.  The former collects about 2.7 times as much light.  And add to that that the 600 f/4 has dual linear AF motors where the 200-600 only has a single motor and you have two completely different AF scenarios from the standpoint of the camera.

I agree. But the AF problems with this combo occur even at 200mm at 5.6 which is very annoying. It is not just at the extreme of the zoom that there is an issue.

I think there is some data to suggest that perhaps there is a communication issue between the lens and the body. For some reason, the lens tends to back focus on this camera body. I have not done that specific test myself, but others have.

Hoping it will be fixed in a firmware upgrade, but even without it the lens is amazingly sharp on the a9 hence a keeper for me.

Pradeep

Most definitely have never had a back focused shot with this combo but then again I shoot it primarily in APS-C/Super 35 mode with this lens.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Most definitely have never had a back focused shot with this combo but then again I shoot it primarily in APS-C/Super 35 mode with this lens.

EJ,
Could you try to shoot BIF in full frame on your a7R IV and report back.
Your valuable feedback would clear this issue I'm sure.

Maybe I don't understand. I thought mirrorless cameras have the AF sensors directly on the sensor itself so micro adjustment isn't necessary. So if there is a back focus issue it has to be either in the lens or in the electronic communication between the lens and sensor.  Of course, with my limited knowledge i could be totally wrong.

Ed Cordes wrote:Maybe I don't understand. I thought mirrorless cameras have the AF sensors directly on the sensor itself so micro adjustment isn't necessary. So if there is a back focus issue it has to be either in the lens or in the electronic communication between the lens and sensor.  Of course, with my limited knowledge i could be totally wrong.

An interesting question 

KK Hui wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:Most definitely have never had a back focused shot with this combo but then again I shoot it primarily in APS-C/Super 35 mode with this lens.

EJ,
Could you try to shoot BIF in full frame on your a7R IV and report back.
Your valuable feedback would clear this issue I'm sure.

I have shot and posted numerous BIF with this combo - but again it is all in APS-C/Super35 mode.