My thoughts on the Sony 600mm prime

[sh1209]

I purchased this lens a couple months ago and was apprehensive about doing so du to the limitations with my arms. Upon receiving it, I must admit I was shocked by how lightweight and balanced it was compared to the F-mount 600mm. The size of the lens is about the same but the weight is drastically less. I have had the lens out several times and find it quiet easy to carry this lens and A1 on my Cotton Carrier vest for 2-4 miles with no issues. I always take my monopod or tripod with me whenever going out with this lens. There are a few things that stood out right away when shooting including, speed of focus, speed of acquired focus and tracking ability. I have the 200-600 & 100-400mm lenses and love those two lenses. In fact, the 200-600 was what got me to leave Nikon in the first place. There are a few things I'd like to point out to potential buyers of this lens as follows.

Reasons to buy:
1-Low light shooting
2-Tracking and focus ability
3-Weight
4-Use with a teleconverter or at least the 1.4x which is all I have
5-Great image quality

Reasons not to buy:
1-This lens will not make your photos drastically better
2-This albeit is lightweight for a 600mm, it's still a massive lens to carry, haul and store
3-If the majority of your shots are 600mm or less
4-If you seldom or never use teleconverters
5-If the majority of your shooting is in great light

Having said all that, it is a phenomenal lens. There is one thing I wish were different and that is for the focus ring to be slightly more forward. I felt with the 500mm PF grabbing the focus ring was just natural and extremely easy to grab. I find this focus ring for me is awkward and perhaps its because I have the longer Wimberley foot. I don't regret buying the lens and really like it. I plan on keeping the other two zooms and use them frequently. I still say if I had to pick one lens out of all the lenses I own to be the only lens I could ever have, it would be the 200-600mm almost tied with the 100-400mm. In my opinion, these two zooms produce exceptional images and I would dare say the 100-400 is nearly as good as the prime.

 

[Steve]

Great thoughts and they mostly echo my own about that lens. Sony did a great job overall.

 

[sh1209]

Great thoughts and they mostly echo my own about that lens. Sony did a great job overall.

The weight of the lens is what I can't understand. It took an engineering marvel to produce a lens that size and lightweight.

 

[Steve]

The weight of the lens is what I can't understand. It took an engineering marvel to produce a lens that size and lightweight.

And it's balanced really well too. It feels lighter than it is and I'm always surprised at how well I can hold it. The 600 E is a like holding a boat anchor by comparison (a sharp, wonderfully rendering boat anchor though!)

 

[sh1209]

And it's balanced really well too. It feels lighter than it is and I'm always surprised at how well I can hold it. The 600 E is a like holding a boat anchor by comparison (a sharp, wonderfully rendering boat anchor though!)

Yes that lens would be a no go for me unless I hired a lens caddy lol

 

[sh1209]

And it's balanced really well too. It feels lighter than it is and I'm always surprised at how well I can hold it. The 600 E is a like holding a boat anchor by comparison (a sharp, wonderfully rendering boat anchor though!)

I have also found with the bare lens, I can't add any sharpening whatsoever to the images. I can add just a touch with the TC but it's incredible how sharp the photos are.

 

[Steve]

I have also found with the bare lens, I can't add any sharpening whatsoever to the images. I can add just a touch with the TC but it's incredible how sharp the photos are.

Same here. In fact, I have to be careful when using things like Topaz Denoise as it likes to add sharpening and it's easy to over sharpen if you'r into careful. Also, I use the 2X on the 600 F/4 all the time and it's incredibly good too. AF isn't as consistent as it is with the 1.4 (or the naked lens), but when it hits (most of the time) it's really good.

 

[arbitrage]

I agree with your thoughts. I love this lens. Have owned mine since Feb 2020.
Recently I tried cheating on it with the 400GM and was thinking of selling the 600 and just using the 400 with TCs as needed. But although the bare 400 is every bit as good as the bare 600, once I start adding TCs to the 400 to equal the 600's focal lengths, I immediately miss the AF and IQ of the bare 600. I had put the 600 to rest for a month or so to play with the new toy (400) but now that the honeymoon is over the 600 is back getting at least 2/3 of my usage.

I used to own the Canon 600II which is similar weight to the Nikon 600E FL. Canon has also got their 600/4 weight down to Sony's level with the 600III and RF600. I'm sure Nikon's upcoming Z 600/4 will get down to similar weights. They were able to do so with the Z400/2.8 even with having a 1.4TC built in.

 

[sh1209]

I agree with your thoughts. I love this lens. Have owned mine since Feb 2020.
Recently I tried cheating on it with the 400GM and was thinking of selling the 600 and just using the 400 with TCs as needed. But although the bare 400 is every bit as good as the bare 600, once I start adding TCs to the 400 to equal the 600's focal lengths, I immediately miss the AF and IQ of the bare 600. I had put the 600 to rest for a month or so to play with the new toy (400) but now that the honeymoon is over the 600 is back getting at least 2/3 of my usage.

I used to own the Canon 600II which is similar weight to the Nikon 600E FL. Canon has also got their 600/4 weight down to Sony's level with the 600III and RF600. I'm sure Nikon's upcoming Z 600/4 will get down to similar weights. They were able to do so with the Z400/2.8 even with having a 1.4TC built in.

It literally looks like the images are pre sharpened straight out of the camera lol. It doesn't change a lot even with the TC. I absolutely love shooting with the bare lens but I need to get used to the focus ring. I have a wrap as well as a longer foot that impedes it somewhat. I also contemplated the 400mm but I'm so glad I got the 600 instead.

 

[Steve]

I agree with your thoughts. I love this lens. Have owned mine since Feb 2020.
Recently I tried cheating on it with the 400GM and was thinking of selling the 600 and just using the 400 with TCs as needed. But although the bare 400 is every bit as good as the bare 600, once I start adding TCs to the 400 to equal the 600's focal lengths, I immediately miss the AF and IQ of the bare 600. I had put the 600 to rest for a month or so to play with the new toy (400) but now that the honeymoon is over the 600 is back getting at least 2/3 of my usage.

I used to own the Canon 600II which is similar weight to the Nikon 600E FL. Canon has also got their 600/4 weight down to Sony's level with the 600III and RF600. I'm sure Nikon's upcoming Z 600/4 will get down to similar weights. They were able to do so with the Z400/2.8 even with having a 1.4TC built in.

I've noticed the same with the 400. I love it at 400 2.8 and I do like it at 560 (although, not as much as the 600 F/4 w/o TCs), however, I notice with the 2X AF just isn't as consistent. So, I use it as I intended to in the first place - when I need something shorter than 600mm.

 

[Wes Peterson]

I agree with your thoughts. I love this lens. Have owned mine since Feb 2020.
Recently I tried cheating on it with the 400GM and was thinking of selling the 600 and just using the 400 with TCs as needed. But although the bare 400 is every bit as good as the bare 600, once I start adding TCs to the 400 to equal the 600's focal lengths, I immediately miss the AF and IQ of the bare 600. I had put the 600 to rest for a month or so to play with the new toy (400) but now that the honeymoon is over the 600 is back getting at least 2/3 of my usage.

I used to own the Canon 600II which is similar weight to the Nikon 600E FL. Canon has also got their 600/4 weight down to Sony's level with the 600III and RF600. I'm sure Nikon's upcoming Z 600/4 will get down to similar weights. They were able to do so with the Z400/2.8 even with having a 1.4TC built in.

I think you mean Sony did a good job getting the weight of the 600 down to Canon's level. The Canon 600 was released a year before the Sony 600.

 

[paulreinstein]

interesting pros and cons above., and i agree with all of them. i love my sony 600 for general wildlife use, but i don't think the 100-400 nor the 200-600 do as well with what i call LSBs (little s^*t birds, aka LBJs). small birds are normally impossible to approach, so if you have to crop significantly, the clarity of the 600 can't be beat, or even matched with other sony lenses. I've got em, and i've tried. small birds are why i bought my 600.

 

[sh1209]

interesting pros and cons above., and i agree with all of them. i love my sony 600 for general wildlife use, but i don't think the 100-400 nor the 200-600 do as well with what i call LSBs (little s^*t birds, aka LBJs). small birds are normally impossible to approach, so if you have to crop significantly, the clarity of the 600 can't be beat, or even matched with other sony lenses. I've got em, and i've tried. small birds are why i bought my 600.

That's primarily my use and it does very well for that, even with the 1.4x TC.

 

[paulreinstein]

oh yes, w 1.4x, excelent combo. i find that using the 2x however, is something of a wash. 2x vs [more] crop turns out to be about the same. i no longer carry the 2x around. its easier to find/frame the subject w/o it, physically lighter w/o it, and more light on the sensor w/o it. so why bother?

 

[sh1209]

oh yes, w 1.4x, excelent combo. i find that using the 2x however, is something of a wash. 2x vs [more] crop turns out to be about the same. i no longer carry the 2x around. its easier to find/frame the subject w/o it, physically lighter w/o it, and more light on the sensor w/o it. so why bother?

I agree on the 2X and I’ve never seen that combination work well with anything to be honest. Honestly even 840 mm is pushing it with atmospheric haze at times. I’ll try not to use one at all unless necessary but the 1.4 does work really well with that lens

 

[Venkatesh VT]

I dont own one .How ever i rented one for my Kenya trip & was blown away by its quality & its hand holding capability.I was even able to take 60 seconds videos with it with out any issueI plan to rent one whene ever i go out for wild life trip

 

[Steve]

I agree on the 2X and I’ve never seen that combination work well with anything to be honest. Honestly even 840 mm is pushing it with atmospheric haze at times. I’ll try not to use one at all unless necessary but the 1.4 does work really well with that lens

The trick is to use the 2x when you're close. It's very good under the right conditions.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[paulreinstein]

those are great photos, at least as they appear on this forum. the real acid test is when you see them on your computer, or print them, full res. if it works for you, i say go for it. its possible you got a better copy than my 2x too.

 

[Doug Herr]

I thought it was a great lens with the a7rIII: light weight (for its specs), quick focus, great image quality. Then I bought the a1

 

[Whiskeyman]

The weight of the lens is what I can't understand. It took an engineering marvel to produce a lens that size and lightweight.

A lot of the differences are in materials. I used to work at a firm that is well known for its gas turbines (i.e., jet engines). Many times, the biggest engineering challenges came down to materials engineering. I always regarded the materials engineers there as some of the brightest people that worked there. I'm willing to wager it is the same with high-end camera lenses.

 

[Whiskeyman]

The trick is to use the 2x when you're close. It's very good under the right conditions.

Steve, isn't this one of your rules of TC use? Use the TC to fill the frame , or nearly so, with your subject. Don't use it to try to make your subject recognizable in the frame.

 

[paulreinstein]

materials, optics, optical materials too. also the little motors amaze me. somewhere inside that big lens is a smaller (but still large chunk of glass) that must zip right along to focus that fast. whole photography industry is magic. one thing i’ve heard is that optical designs these days are greatly aided by software simulation. but it still requires great skill/knowledge to model it and design it…i think.

note, before i went to sony, i briefly had the canon 600iii. i’m sure its a different design, but the end result is almost identical, and it worked equally well.

 

[Steve]

Steve, isn't this one of your rules of TC use? Use the TC to fill the frame , or nearly so, with your subject. Don't use it to try to make your subject recognizable in the frame.

Yup Exactly

 

[Steve]

those are great photos, at least as they appear on this forum. the real acid test is when you see them on your computer, or print them, full res. if it works for you, i say go for it. its possible you got a better copy than my 2x too.

Here's a 100% crop of the fox. I'm happy with it and would have no fear of printing it large or sending it an editor.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Doug Herr]

A lot of the differences are in materials. I used to work at a firm that is well known for its gas turbines (i.e., jet engines). Many times, the biggest engineering challenges came down to materials engineering. I always regarded the materials engineers there as some of the brightest people that worked there. I'm willing to wager it is the same with high-end camera lenses.

Sony designed the optics so that more of the elements are toward the rear of the lens where they are smaller and would balance better.