sony 200-600

[jmurthy]

for the folks with experience with sony and nikon glass, how does the sony 200-600 with megadap adapter compare to nikkor z100-400 with 1.4 TC on a z9 body. apologies, if this has been discussed elsewhere, happy to look at links.
thanks a bunch.
Jay

 

[Ed Bremer]

for the folks with experience with sony and nikon glass, how does the sony 200-600 with megadap adapter compare to nikkor z100-400 with 1.4 TC on a z9 body. apologies, if this has been discussed elsewhere, happy to look at links.
thanks a bunch.
Jay

My only input for this would be that of a Sony A1 using both the 200-600 lens and the 100-400 GM lens. The 200-600 is a very good lens but is slow to focus at or near the 600mm range. The 100-400 however is very sharp and very quick to focus at any length. Having tried Tampon and Sigma zoom lenses on previous Nikon DSLRs I would say don't mix brands. The best results I have personally had have been with using all of one brand for camera/lens combos.

 

[DavidT]

The native Nikon lens will work better.

 

[jmurthy]

thank you both! sage advice! brought me back to firm footing after a fleeting moment of angst and irrational thoughts.

 

[GrandNagus50]

for the folks with experience with sony and nikon glass, how does the sony 200-600 with megadap adapter compare to nikkor z100-400 with 1.4 TC on a z9 body. apologies, if this has been discussed elsewhere, happy to look at links.
thanks a bunch.
Jay

The Sony 200-600mm with the Megadap adapter works just fine on the Z9 and the lens is very, very sharp. All modes of autofocus work. I have no doubt that ultimately, the Nikon lens will work better in some respects (compatibility with teleconverters comes to mind), but with each passing day without the Nikon lens being available I am happier with my decision to gamble with the Sony/Megadap combination.

 

[jmurthy]

The Sony 200-600mm with the Megadap adapter works just fine on the Z9 and the lens is very, very sharp. All modes of autofocus work. I have no doubt that ultimately, the Nikon lens will work better in some respects (compatibility with teleconverters comes to mind), but with each passing day without the Nikon lens being available I am happier with my decision to gamble with the Sony/Megadap combination.

thank you! any issues with CAF speed or focus acquisition like eyes of animals? BIF?

 

[GrandNagus50]

thank you! any issues with CAF speed or focus acquisition like eyes of animals? BIF?

It works just like a native lens; it might be slightly slower, but all of the tracking modes work fine.
That said, it seems that the Nikon version of the lens might well be announced within the next month or two, according to Nikon Rumors. Of course, it might not.

 

[jmurthy]

It works just like a native lens; it might be slightly slower, but all of the tracking modes work fine.
That said, it seems that the Nikon version of the lens might well be announced within the next month or two, according to Nikon Rumors. Of course, it might not.

thank you and i agree, might just be better waiting for the nikkor z version. hope the weather sealing, focus speed and internal zoom are all comparable if not better on the nikon bodies.

 

[ElenaH]

My partner has Sony 200-600 on Z9 and he adores it.
We were shooting European Bee-eaters, they just arrived, choosing partners and holes and sometimes fighting for the holes. They are very dificult to photograph, I mean BIF+fight in the air. I took about 4000 shots with Z9+ Z100-400 for just to get those fighing shots and I am not really happy with my results. But my partner got the shot! He said also that he was extremely happy to have this combination of Sony 200-600 and Z9. He also has Z 800mm and he said that AF on 200-600 is faster than on Z800.

Earlier, for other post we made a AF test of 200-600 on Z9 and 100-400 on Z9 and as far as I remember 200-600 was a bit faster. But the AF target was about 5-6m away. So we did the test as following: two Z9 cameas with diffrent lenses focused on the same target and then defocused (one time further and one- closer) Then both were focused and this was recorded with iPhone becasue otherwise it is difficult to see which camera+lens is faster. Only if we re-play the recorded video in half-a-speed we can see the difference.

We have 1,4TC. If somebody is interested then we can repeat the test with target further away (10m, 20m) I think, I will repeat it just becasue I am curious. I have also 500 PF and 150-600 Sigma. I also used the same focal lenght for testing. So if I test 100-400 against 200-600 then I used 400mm on both.
I hink, it is correct so?

 

[jmurthy]

My partner has Sony 200-600 on Z9 and he adores it.
We were shooting European Bee-eaters, they just arrived, choosing partners and holes and sometimes fighting for the holes. They are very dificult to photograph, I mean BIF+fight in the air. I took about 4000 shots with Z9+ Z100-400 for just to get those fighing shots and I am not really happy with my results. But my partner got the shot! He said also that he was extremely happy to have this combination of Sony 200-600 and Z9. He also has Z 800mm and he said that AF on 200-600 is faster than on Z800.

Earlier, for other post we made a AF test of 200-600 on Z9 and 100-400 on Z9 and as far as I remember 200-600 was a bit faster. But the AF target was about 5-6m away. So we did the test as following: two Z9 cameas with diffrent lenses focused on the same target and then defocused (one time further and one- closer) Then both were focused and this was recorded with iPhone becasue otherwise it is difficult to see which camera+lens is faster. Only if we re-play the recorded video in half-a-speed we can see the difference.

We have 1,4TC. If somebody is interested then we can repeat the test with target further away (10m, 20m) I think, I will repeat it just becasue I am curious. I have also 500 PF and 150-600 Sigma. I also used the same focal lenght for testing. So if I test 100-400 against 200-600 then I used 400mm on both.
I hink, it is correct so?

Oh wow! thats impressive for a non native lens!! thank u for posting detailed results! def gives me a pause to consider alternatives such as the sony on nikon z9

 

[bronaldo]

How reliable is the adapter? I've read complaints about it being fragile.

 

[ElenaH]

How reliable is the adapter? I've read complaints about it being fragile.

I think, it is quite robust, especially if it always stays with lens and is not detached often.
And Adapter must be of second generation, it is important.

 

[bronaldo]

I think, it is quite robust, especially if it always stays with lens and is not detached often.
And Adapter must be of second generation, it is important.

Thank you!

 

[GrandNagus50]

Let me add my two cents' worth, since I own the same combo. The Megadap adapter seems robust enough, but like Elena indicates, it stays on the lens as if it's part of its built-in mount. This would need to change were I to try to use a Sony teleconverter, i.e., I would need to move the adapter back and forth between the lens and the teleconverter. I decided not to risk this, as who knows what the result might be of constantly mounting and unmounting the adapter. It's for this reason that I would (still) consider getting the Nikon version of the lens, should it ever actually be produced, be affordable, and display the same sterling ergonomic and optical qualities of the Sony.

 

[Garfield]

I also have this combination but shoot video and really have never tried to do an A:B sharpness comparison so refrained from trying to answer the OP's original question. If I was forced to answer, my impressions are that there's no significant real-world difference between the 100-400 + TC and the 200-600 in terms of sharpness -- both lenses are remarkably good which is saying something about the Sony since it's not a G-master lens.

That being said, the 200-600 is bigger and heavier (obviously), the stabilization is relatively poor on the Z9, and the Z9 cannot focus when the lens is actively being zoomed. In the past couple of weeks I've been casually walking around shooting warbler videos handheld and the 200-600 never came out of the car. The shorter focal length on the 100-400 was not an issue since I was shooting 3.8k120p in 2.3x crop DX mode for an equivalent of 920mm FX and 1288mm FX with the 1.4TC. Given the ability to "go long" even with the 100-400 and the exceptional stabilization even at 920mm and 1288mm FX equivalent focal lengths at f5.6/f8 respectively, in a lighter/smaller rig has me questioning whether or not I'll be keeping the 200-600 long term.

Obviously this can't be directly translated to shooting stills, but the principle still survives, I think. All lenses have their pros and cons, and mounting the Sony 200-600 to a Nikon body with the Megadap ETZ adds a few extra "cons" that need to be considered.

Still, the Sony 200-600 is a remarkably capable lens and can be purchased relatively inexpensively, so it until Nikon finally gets around to releasing the version the Sony is most definitely an option, just don't forget the cons.