My thoughts on the Sony 600mm prime

paulreinstein · Oct 5, 2022

no doubt, it certainly looks good to me. all i can tell you is that one day about 2 years ago, i sat by the edge of a nearby lake, watching a pair of red-necked phalaropes go in circles for a couple of hours. the distance to them hardly changed (20-30'), and as they went round and round, i went through the base 600, added the 1.4x and the 2x. i did it with both my a9ii and a7Riv, and with my 200-600 also. lots and lots of shots.

i picked out the sharpest amongst them, and cropped to just the center 1/3 of the image (1/9th of the total pixels). on my monitor, for the a7Riv, that's pretty close to 100% view. then i moved them from Lightroom (which has limited zooming levels) to Photoshop, where i looked at the 1.4x at 100% and the 2x at 67%. viewed that way, i thought the cropped 1.4x images held a barely perceptible advantage over the 2x.

when people, such as yourself tell me, and show me a 100% crop, i'm never entirely sure how they got there and what i'm looking at. nor is it clear to me that what i'm looking at on my computer is the same as what you're looking at. computers, the internet, displays and software do lots of things behind the scene, so truth is, theres a lot of computer stuff i don't really understand. i would guess that you're vastly better at presenting a 100% crop that than i am, but because i'm not that good at LR, let alone PS, all i can do is defer to your expertise and believe your results were different than mine, which is what i was trying to do above. i offer my experience, to whatever level of knowledge i think i've gotten to, and i have no issues disagreeing with people who legitimately have different experiences. the world is complicated. if something i say rings true for someone, great. if not, great. and i'm open to being corrected when i'm wrong. your photo above looks very sharp, but i'd need a more critical, complete and compelling presentation to change my mind on this, especially since i'm old and very weight concious (i'm biased and lazy and don't want to carry the 2x also!).

maybe what i should do is take a few feathers, stick them in the ground, and repeat the test on a windless day. but i need to think through the most appropriate settings for the test, which i did on the fly back then, and i never really concluded that they were the best and fairest settings to compare. for example, when you add the 2x, the aperture is effectively smaller, so is it more appropriate to shoot that smaller aperture with the 1.4x also or change the ISO or shutter speed or some compromise approach...? not clear to me. in the field, i would normally shoot wide open, whatever that means for that lens combination, and i try to shoot ~1/(2xfocal length), depending. and then i let the ISO go where it needs to, to get the proper exposure. note that given that the 2x results in a smaller aperture (less light), and the longer focal length would recommend a faster shutter speed (less light), then the ISO needs to go significantly higher, and that produces more noise, and even with Topaz DeNoise (which i didn't have 2 years ago), its not clear how all that shakes out. like i said, whatever works for you. i'm not planning to carry my 2x anywhere any time soon.

LTK · Oct 5, 2022

When I tried a friends 600mm f4 on my A1 I tried it bare and with both TC’s . Subjects at the time was very limited . Focus speed with the x1.4 on was great and showed very little loss in IQ . With the x2 on focus was still very fast although the loss in IQ was now definitely more noticeable. With the x2 it’s more like when I have the 1.4 on the 200-600 . Loses that 3D pop and gives impression you need to adjust the sharpening sliders

Steve · Oct 5, 2022

paulreinstein said:
no doubt, it certainly looks good to me. all i can tell you is that one day about 2 years ago, i sat by the edge of a nearby lake, watching a pair of red-necked phalaropes go in circles for a couple of hours. the distance to them hardly changed (20-30'), and as they went round and round, i went through the base 600, added the 1.4x and the 2x. i did it with both my a9ii and a7Riv, and with my 200-600 also. lots and lots of shots.

i picked out the sharpest amongst them, and cropped to just the center 1/3 of the image (1/9th of the total pixels). on my monitor, for the a7Riv, that's pretty close to 100% view. then i moved them from Lightroom (which has limited zooming levels) to Photoshop, where i looked at the 1.4x at 100% and the 2x at 67%. viewed that way, i thought the cropped 1.4x images held a barely perceptible advantage over the 2x.

when people, such as yourself tell me, and show me a 100% crop, i'm never entirely sure how they got there and what i'm looking at. nor is it clear to me that what i'm looking at on my computer is the same as what you're looking at. computers, the internet, displays and software do lots of things behind the scene, so truth is, theres a lot of computer stuff i don't really understand. i would guess that you're vastly better at presenting a 100% crop that than i am, but because i'm not that good at LR, let alone PS, all i can do is defer to your expertise and believe your results were different than mine, which is what i was trying to do above. i offer my experience, to whatever level of knowledge i think i've gotten to, and i have no issues disagreeing with people who legitimately have different experiences. the world is complicated. if something i say rings true for someone, great. if not, great. and i'm open to being corrected when i'm wrong. your photo above looks very sharp, but i'd need a more critical, complete and compelling presentation to change my mind on this, especially since i'm old and very weight concious (i'm biased and lazy and don't want to carry the 2x also!).

maybe what i should do is take a few feathers, stick them in the ground, and repeat the test on a windless day. but i need to think through the most appropriate settings for the test, which i did on the fly back then, and i never really concluded that they were the best and fairest settings to compare. for example, when you add the 2x, the aperture is effectively smaller, so is it more appropriate to shoot that smaller aperture with the 1.4x also or change the ISO or shutter speed or some compromise approach...? not clear to me. in the field, i would normally shoot wide open, whatever that means for that lens combination, and i try to shoot ~1/(2xfocal length), depending. and then i let the ISO go where it needs to, to get the proper exposure. note that given that the 2x results in a smaller aperture (less light), and the longer focal length would recommend a faster shutter speed (less light), then the ISO needs to go significantly higher, and that produces more noise, and even with Topaz DeNoise (which i didn't have 2 years ago), its not clear how all that shakes out. like i said, whatever works for you. i'm not planning to carry my 2x anywhere any time soon.

There really are a lot of factors that go into it. There are environmental factors, such as heat distortion, there are varies in technique (many can't manage a 1200mm lens very well), there are variances in gear, there are variances in conditions (quality of light, light levels, shutter speeds you can use), and I'm sure a couple I'm forgetting about

Still, I think it's worth giving your 2X another try. FWIW, for the screen shot of the fox, I simply zoomed into 100% in Lightroom and took a screen shot of the eye (then saved it as a JPEG).

Also, remember that the 2X will never be as sharp as the bare lens and I do see a difference between the shots. However, the 2X can provide incredibly good sharpness and - for me - is typically better than cropping. Also, sometimes you do need to play with sharpening a bit to bring it in. A slightly soft image that's not really out of focus can usually be saved with a bit of careful sharpening - this usually applies more to the 2X when I'm shooting in flat, overcast (often dim) light than when there is some direction and contrast to the light.

Stephen Berger · Oct 5, 2022

Except for putting on and taking off the 1.4TC (I also own the 2.0 but haven’t tried it yet. I will now after reading Steve’s comments) it’s the only lens that touches my A1. Any other lens I use goes on the 7RIV.

And as happy as I’ve been when using the 1.4, when I remove it and use the bare lens there is for me - subtly- more of an ‘ahhhh’ quality to both the handling and the images.

I was talking to another wildlife photographer yesterday and the cost of the A1/600 combo came up. I told him it was the biggest financial indulgence of my life and that while I can have buyers remorse over a pair of jeans I’ve never had a moment of second guessing the purchase.

DavidT · Oct 5, 2022

Great to hear you are loving the lens. It is a big leap to make spending that much on a lens but like you I love mine. It is by far the best lens I have ever owned and I shoot 90% of my wildlife images with it. I also have the 400GM and it has its use cases but like Steve I don't use converters to get it to do what my 600 already can. They all have their use cases.

I am also one who has had nice results with the 600GM and the 2x. I haven't tried the 2x on the 400 yet but I have on the 70-200GM MKII and it is amazing!

Doug Herr · Oct 5, 2022

Stephen Berger said:
Except for putting on and taking off the 1.4TC ... it’s the only lens that touches my A1. Any other lens I use goes on the 7RIV.

And as happy as I’ve been when using the 1.4, when I remove it and use the bare lens there is for me - subtly- more of an ‘ahhhh’ quality to both the handling and the images.

I was talking to another wildlife photographer yesterday and the cost of the A1/600 combo came up. I told him it was the biggest financial indulgence of my life and that while I can have buyers remorse over a pair of jeans I’ve never had a moment of second guessing the purchase.

Agree 100%, except for myself the other lenses are used on the a7RIII (and I'm scheming a way to trade for a second a1).

ChrisM · Oct 5, 2022

I hve the A1 + 200-600G lens, and am saving up for the 600GM. Can there be credibility in statements (by anyone) that the 200-600G lens has "almost equal" image quality as the 600GM?

I would be very disappointed if this were the case. I have used lenses like the Sigma 500mm f4S, the Nikon 500PF and the Canon 400mm f4DOII. All of these lenses were significantly better than the 200-600G, with regards to (micro contrast), subtlety of color rendering, fine detail rendering, quality of bokeh, and more things.
In good direct contrasty daylight, the 200-600G is quite ok., but in lesser light the images quickly start to look flat, lack sparkle and fine crispness. Also the colors are not that subtle, bold and saturated, but lacking depth and nuance.

Not meaning to speak ill of the 200-600G, for its money it is a cracking lens, but if the 600GM is not a few good steps better in the ways described above, I would regret buying it. Should I try it out first?

Stephen Berger · Oct 5, 2022

ChrisM said:
I hve the A1 + 200-600G lens, and am saving up for the 600GM. Can there be credibility in statements (by anyone) that the 200-600G lens has "almost equal" image quality as the 600GM?

I would be very disappointed if this were the case. I have used lenses like the Sigma 500mm f4S, the Nikon 500PF and the Canon 400mm f4DOII. All of these lenses were significantly better than the 200-600G, with regards to (micro contrast), subtlety of color rendering, fine detail rendering, quality of bokeh, and more things.
In good direct contrasty daylight, the 200-600G is quite ok., but in lesser light the images quickly start to look flat, lack sparkle and fine crispness. Also the colors are not that subtle, bold and saturated, but lacking depth and nuance.

Not meaning to speak ill of the 200-600G, for its money it is a cracking lens, but if the 600GM is not a few good steps better in the ways described above, I would regret buying it. Should I try it out first?

I don’t think there’s any question that it’s a big step up. I have the 100-400GM and there’s a huge difference. Subject isolation/pop, sharpness and the ability to shoot in lower light being 3 areas. That said, to ge the most out of it, it’s still up to the photographer to use it to it’s strengths.

DavidT · Oct 5, 2022

ChrisM said:
I hve the A1 + 200-600G lens, and am saving up for the 600GM. Can there be credibility in statements (by anyone) that the 200-600G lens has "almost equal" image quality as the 600GM?

I would be very disappointed if this were the case. I have used lenses like the Sigma 500mm f4S, the Nikon 500PF and the Canon 400mm f4DOII. All of these lenses were significantly better than the 200-600G, with regards to (micro contrast), subtlety of color rendering, fine detail rendering, quality of bokeh, and more things.
In good direct contrasty daylight, the 200-600G is quite ok., but in lesser light the images quickly start to look flat, lack sparkle and fine crispness. Also the colors are not that subtle, bold and saturated, but lacking depth and nuance.

Not meaning to speak ill of the 200-600G, for its money it is a cracking lens, but if the 600GM is not a few good steps better in the ways described above, I would regret buying it. Should I try it out first?

Yes the 600GM as expected is better. Now with that said for subject sharpness the 200-600 is a heavy hitter in good light and center of frame. However, when looking at color, corner to corner sharpens, faster AF, better with TC, contrast, the extra subject isolation, contrast etc. the 600 is by far above the 200-600. It is also a lot more expensive. I started with the 200-600, it was the first Sony lens I bought to try out the a1 before moving to Sony last year. I still have the lens as it at times serves a purpose however when given the choice I will take my 600 or 400GM out unless the 200-600 makes more sense for versatility. Since I bought the 600GM in October last year I have used the 200-600 once.

Do a little searching on here there are some great threads comparing these as others have questioned if spending the extra money is really worth it. Also, search for the a1 threads as there is a bit of info for these two lenses found in them as well. If it is worth it really comes down to what is the 200-600 not giving you that you think the 600 will? What do you expect to gain with the 600GM? Are you comfortable with the cost and size? Just because something is technically better doesn't mean it is necessarily the best choice for you.

Doug Herr · Oct 5, 2022

One of my first photos made with the 600 GM three years ago. By far the most expensive photo equipment purchase I've made to date. No regrets. It was a great lens with the a7rIII.