Sony 400-800 f/6.3-8 G lens coming in Feb EDIT: It's here and Steve has it!!

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
FWIW - I had the 400-800, tested it for a few hours and sold it.

Ultimately I realized a few things:
  • I don't value zoom versatility, I prefer to just get framing right with my feet or prime focal length
    • on the 400-800 more than any other lens, I kept bumping the focal length ring and would end up all over the place. very annoying. wish they included a lock
    • also, I probably am not the intended audience since I would pin that lens at 800mm for 90%+ of the time
  • The OEM foot and hood both suck. I expect Wimberley/Zemlin will fix that eventually
    • foot is far too small, hood is too large and heavy
  • IQ of the 400-800 was very good when filling the frame, but fell off fast when cropping
  • Rampant CA with the 400-800 more than any lens I've ever used
    • hopefully should be an easy fix with software when DXO gets around to it
  • I got much better results IQ wise with the 300GM + 2x and then cropping to 800mm equivalent FOV, than with the 400-800
    • for this reason, that will be my choice. significantly smaller and lighter, while being faster and better IQ.
  • The 400-800 is what I consider a big and heavy lens
    • if I'm going to take a big and heavy lens out (as opposed to 300GM), I may as well just take a 600 f4 out. they feel the same, fatigue the same, both need support, etc.
Reviews overall have been pretty mixed. People coming from 100-400s and 200-600s seem to be pretty impressed. Those with access to 300 f2.8s, 400 f2.8s or 600 f4s are less impressed. As expected I suppose. I think I fell victim to the hype train reviews and expected far more out of the lens than I should have given it falls into the "budget" category.

Of our local group - most shoot Sony now and 6 of us got our hands on the lens. 5 of us have or are reselling it. But then again - all of us have the 300GM, 600GM, or both.
Click to expand...
I own the 600gm, 200-600, 100-400, 70-200 and 24-70 Sony lenses. I absolutely would not be without a zoom. In good light the images from the 200-600 and 100-400 are nearly indistinguishable from the 600GM. In fact, my most used lens is the 100–400 so I’m not sure where you’re coming up with people that have primes don’t shoot zooms. You obviously don’t do video because if you did, you would know that zooms are far more useful than a prime, especially for wildlife video.
 
Member's gallery
In fact if I’m going on a longer hike than normal or in rough terrain, I will always grab the zoom over the prime. Sonys zooms produce outstanding image quality!
 
Member's gallery
Each to his/her own. I am feeling feisty today and I will respond.

I like zoom versatility. If nothing else, it makes it much easier to locate a bird in the foliage quickly and then zoom in close. It also eliminates a lot of need to "zoom with your feet," plus it saves a lot of the fiddliness of putting on and taking off teleconverters. In some situations, this can be a thing.

The OEM foot is not great, but once in the field and actually using the lens, I found am not bothered. The hood is fine.

As for IQ, I have evolved over the years from serious pixel peeping to the school of thought that thinks "sharp enough" is sharp enough. I don't go as far as Ken Rockwell with this stance, but I think he is correct when he asserts that many people compulse way too much about "sharpness" and hence talk themselves out of using lenses that are just fine and maybe don't break the bank. Can one tell the difference between the highest quality fixed focal length tele and a budget zoom? Of course, but it really only matters if you are cropping heavily and/or making huge enlargements. For what most of us use our cameras for these days (online reproduction), a "good" consumer zoom (like the 400-800) is plenty sharp enough, and this before even bringing up the subject of judicious post-processing sharpening. And yes, whatever CA there is will almost surely be eliminated once DxO creates a lens profile for the Sony zoom.

As for size, the 400-800 weighs 1.25 pounds less than the Sony 600 f4. To me that's significant. Would I rather have a 600 mm f4 that costs 4x as much? Heck yes. We are talking apples and oranges here.

I own a few really ridiculously sharp tele lenses, including the Panasonic Leica 200mm f2.8 for M43, the Olympus 300 f4 for M43, and the Nikon 600mm f4G VR. I do revel in how sharp the images are coming straight out of the camera. But this doesn't stop me from owning, using, and enjoying lenses that are more versatile even though they are not quite as sharp.
 
Member's gallery
GrandNagus50 said:
Each to his/her own. I am feeling feisty today and I will respond.

I like zoom versatility. If nothing else, it makes it much easier to locate a bird in the foliage quickly and then zoom in close. It also eliminates a lot of need to "zoom with your feet," plus it saves a lot of the fiddliness of putting on and taking off teleconverters. In some situations, this can be a thing.

The OEM foot is not great, but once in the field and actually using the lens, I found am not bothered. The hood is fine.

As for IQ, I have evolved over the years from serious pixel peeping to the school of thought that thinks "sharp enough" is sharp enough. I don't go as far as Ken Rockwell with this stance, but I think he is correct when he asserts that many people compulse way too much about "sharpness" and hence talk themselves out of using lenses that are just fine and maybe don't break the bank. Can one tell the difference between the highest quality fixed focal length tele and a budget zoom? Of course, but it really only matters if you are cropping heavily and/or making huge enlargements. For what most of us use our cameras for these days (online reproduction), a "good" consumer zoom (like the 400-800) is plenty sharp enough, and this before even bringing up the subject of judicious post-processing sharpening. And yes, whatever CA there is will almost surely be eliminated once DxO creates a lens profile for the Sony zoom.

As for size, the 400-800 weighs 1.25 pounds less than the Sony 600 f4. To me that's significant. Would I rather have a 600 mm f4 that costw 4x as much? Heck yes. We are talking apples and oranges here.

I own a few really ridiculously sharp tele lenses, including the Panasonic Leica 200mm f2.8 for M43, the Olympus 300 f4 for M43, and the Nikon 600mm f4G VR. I do revel in how sharp the images are coming straight out of the camera. But this doesn't stop me from owning, using, and enjoying lenses that are more versatile even though they are not quite as sharp.
Click to expand...
Well said and couldn’t agree more!
 
Member's gallery
I had 2 of the Sony 200-600 and used them on the A9 and A1. I never warmed to the lens' IQ. The 400-800 was found by Steve to be sharper at 600mm and long end IIRC.
For Sony I ended up getting a 400/2.8 and TCs. After several years of weightlifting and a battle with Sony to replace it due to back focusing, I got out of Sony in favour of Nikon Z and the PF lenses.
The new lens adapted appeals to me as it would make for a 2 lens kit on an upcoming Antarctic trip rather than 3.
PhotoLab will take a long time if ever they do a module for the lens and a Z body.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I own the 600gm, 200-600, 100-400, 70-200 and 24-70 Sony lenses. I absolutely would not be without a zoom. In good light the images from the 200-600 and 100-400 are nearly indistinguishable from the 600GM. In fact, my most used lens is the 100–400 so I’m not sure where you’re coming up with people that have primes don’t shoot zooms. You obviously don’t do video because if you did, you would know that zooms are far more useful than a prime, especially for wildlife video.
Click to expand...

My experience is in Michigan :) we more often than not, do not have good light.

I also never stated anything remotely close to "people that have primes don't shoot zooms".

Correct, I obviously don't do video. If I did - I'm sure my kit would involve a lot more zooms and less primes, since video is so much more forgiving with regards to aperture and shutter speeds.

I didn't post anything except my experience with the lens (as requested by many people), and the experience of those I'm around lol. Nothing more, nothing less.

My feedback of the lens and its use case is obviously different than yours, and that's okay :)
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
FWIW - I had the 400-800, tested it for a few hours and sold it.

Ultimately I realized a few things:
  • I don't value zoom versatility, I prefer to just get framing right with my feet or prime focal length
    • on the 400-800 more than any other lens, I kept bumping the focal length ring and would end up all over the place. very annoying. wish they included a lock
    • also, I probably am not the intended audience since I would pin that lens at 800mm for 90%+ of the time
  • The OEM foot and hood both suck. I expect Wimberley/Zemlin will fix that eventually
    • foot is far too small, hood is too large and heavy
  • IQ of the 400-800 was very good when filling the frame, but fell off fast when cropping
  • Rampant CA with the 400-800 more than any lens I've ever used
    • hopefully should be an easy fix with software when DXO gets around to it
  • I got much better results IQ wise with the 300GM + 2x and then cropping to 800mm equivalent FOV, than with the 400-800
    • for this reason, that will be my choice. significantly smaller and lighter, while being faster and better IQ.
  • The 400-800 is what I consider a big and heavy lens
    • if I'm going to take a big and heavy lens out (as opposed to 300GM), I may as well just take a 600 f4 out. they feel the same, fatigue the same, both need support, etc.
Reviews overall have been pretty mixed. People coming from 100-400s and 200-600s seem to be pretty impressed. Those with access to 300 f2.8s, 400 f2.8s or 600 f4s are less impressed. As expected I suppose. I think I fell victim to the hype train reviews and expected far more out of the lens than I should have given it falls into the "budget" category.

Of our local group - most shoot Sony now and 6 of us got our hands on the lens. 5 of us have or are reselling it. But then again - all of us have the 300GM, 600GM, or both.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing these observations and thoughts. I had no strong intention of buying the lens because my 200-600 just collected dust after I owned the better primes. But now I have put any inkling of buying this lens out of my mind and feel reinvigorated to just shoot my 300GM as IMO it is the best lens I've ever owned.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
FWIW - I had the 400-800, tested it for a few hours and sold it.

Ultimately I realized a few things:
  • I don't value zoom versatility, I prefer to just get framing right with my feet or prime focal length
    • on the 400-800 more than any other lens, I kept bumping the focal length ring and would end up all over the place. very annoying. wish they included a lock
    • also, I probably am not the intended audience since I would pin that lens at 800mm for 90%+ of the time
  • The OEM foot and hood both suck. I expect Wimberley/Zemlin will fix that eventually
    • foot is far too small, hood is too large and heavy
  • IQ of the 400-800 was very good when filling the frame, but fell off fast when cropping
  • Rampant CA with the 400-800 more than any lens I've ever used
    • hopefully should be an easy fix with software when DXO gets around to it
  • I got much better results IQ wise with the 300GM + 2x and then cropping to 800mm equivalent FOV, than with the 400-800
    • for this reason, that will be my choice. significantly smaller and lighter, while being faster and better IQ.
  • The 400-800 is what I consider a big and heavy lens
    • if I'm going to take a big and heavy lens out (as opposed to 300GM), I may as well just take a 600 f4 out. they feel the same, fatigue the same, both need support, etc.
Reviews overall have been pretty mixed. People coming from 100-400s and 200-600s seem to be pretty impressed. Those with access to 300 f2.8s, 400 f2.8s or 600 f4s are less impressed. As expected I suppose. I think I fell victim to the hype train reviews and expected far more out of the lens than I should have given it falls into the "budget" category.

Of our local group - most shoot Sony now and 6 of us got our hands on the lens. 5 of us have or are reselling it. But then again - all of us have the 300GM, 600GM, or both.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think if I didn't have the 600 f4, I would have bought it. But since I do...
 
Member's gallery
I think it may be likely that sample variation takes its toll on some copies, given that this lens is in essence a consumer zoom lens.
Ken Rockwell has some samples from this lens at 400mm and 800mm that show quite strong spherochromatism at 400mm, and still traces of it at 800mm, although it is virtually gone at 800mm, and the IQ seems very nice.
Based on his review it is best to leave the 400-800mm at 800mm.

I had plans getting this lens due to the things Sony got right: full time DMF, dual linear focus motors, f8 at 800mm instead of f9.
But having the 600GM it makes no sense. I want a smaller and more portable lens, preferably one that has similar IQ.
I prolong my wait for my unicorn lens: a GM level 600mm f5.6 prime lens.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
Thanks for sharing these observations and thoughts. I had no strong intention of buying the lens because my 200-600 just collected dust after I owned the better primes. But now I have put any inkling of buying this lens out of my mind and feel reinvigorated to just shoot my 300GM as IMO it is the best lens I've ever owned.
Click to expand...

RikWriter said:
Yeah, I think if I didn't have the 600 f4, I would have bought it. But since I do...
Click to expand...

ChrisM said:
I think it may be likely that sample variation takes its toll on some copies, given that this lens is in essence a consumer zoom lens.
Ken Rockwell has some samples from this lens at 400mm and 800mm that show quite strong spherochromatism at 400mm, and still traces of it at 800mm, although it is virtually gone at 800mm, and the IQ seems very nice.
Based on his review it is best to leave the 400-800mm at 800mm.

I had plans getting this lens due to the things Sony got right: full time DMF, dual linear focus motors, f8 at 800mm instead of f9.
But having the 600GM it makes no sense. I want a smaller and more portable lens, preferably one that has similar IQ.
I prolong my wait for my unicorn lens: a GM level 600mm f5.6 prime lens.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the sentiment I was trying to express. If you have access to the Sony wildlife primes, the 400-800 is kind of in a weird spot. It's maybe more expensive than it should be, bigger and heavier than the (already) big and heavy 200-600, and very slow compared to what you have access to.

I think there will be a lot of people out there who love the lens, but I don't think that fan base will overlap much with people who already own the 300GM, 400GM, or 600GM.

Even if you don't have one of the primes, I think there's a very strong argument to stick with the 200-600 and just use a 1.4x for less than half the price, and some weight savings.

I could see the 400-800 being used mainly by people who love zooms, and maybe want a 2 lens wildlife setup like 100-400 + 400-800. Or maybe a supplemental hide shooter, or videographer who has different needs from a stills shooter.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
This is exactly the sentiment I was trying to express. If you have access to the Sony wildlife primes, the 400-800 is kind of in a weird spot. It's maybe more expensive than it should be, bigger and heavier than the (already) big and heavy 200-600, and very slow compared to what you have access to.
Click to expand...


I would disagree with you there, on the 200-600. It's not that big or heavy, really. I find it very easy to carry hiking.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I still want to get the 300GM but will definitely sell the 600 first. Honestly getting tired of the bulk and really loved my short stent with the loaner 300GM. It would honestly be all I need.
Click to expand...
I can imagine the appeal that the 300GM has with converters, when you are tired of the bulk of the 600GM.
I still love to handle the 600GM for dedicated birding trips, so for me the appeal of the 300GM is not there.
For more general trips or hikes though, where I would like to bring a wildlife combo, or for longer travel abroad, I would like the option of a smaller and lighter lens.

The 300GM has not enticed me to part with 7000,- as I still see it as an expensive compromise and wait for other options.
When I don't want the size and weight of the 600GM, I currently take my high end 12x binoculars. They offer a nice alternative way of getting close to wildlife.
 
Member's gallery
ChrisM said:
I can imagine the appeal that the 300GM has with converters, when you are tired of the bulk of the 600GM.
I still love to handle the 600GM for dedicated birding trips, so for me the appeal of the 300GM is not there.
For more general trips or hikes though, where I would like to bring a wildlife combo, or for longer travel abroad, I would like the option of a smaller and lighter lens.

The 300GM has not enticed me to part with 7000,- as I still see it as an expensive compromise and wait for other options.
When I don't want the size and weight of the 600GM, I currently take my high end 12x binoculars. They offer a nice alternative way of getting close to wildlife.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s a hard lens to part with for sure. I’ve been on the fence about it for a while and keep talking myself out of it.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
FWIW - I had the 400-800, tested it for a few hours and sold it.

Ultimately I realized a few things:
  • I don't value zoom versatility, I prefer to just get framing right with my feet or prime focal length
    • on the 400-800 more than any other lens, I kept bumping the focal length ring and would end up all over the place. very annoying. wish they included a lock
    • also, I probably am not the intended audience since I would pin that lens at 800mm for 90%+ of the time
  • The OEM foot and hood both suck. I expect Wimberley/Zemlin will fix that eventually
    • foot is far too small, hood is too large and heavy
  • IQ of the 400-800 was very good when filling the frame, but fell off fast when cropping
  • Rampant CA with the 400-800 more than any lens I've ever used
    • hopefully should be an easy fix with software when DXO gets around to it
  • I got much better results IQ wise with the 300GM + 2x and then cropping to 800mm equivalent FOV, than with the 400-800
    • for this reason, that will be my choice. significantly smaller and lighter, while being faster and better IQ.
  • The 400-800 is what I consider a big and heavy lens
    • if I'm going to take a big and heavy lens out (as opposed to 300GM), I may as well just take a 600 f4 out. they feel the same, fatigue the same, both need support, etc.
Reviews overall have been pretty mixed. People coming from 100-400s and 200-600s seem to be pretty impressed. Those with access to 300 f2.8s, 400 f2.8s or 600 f4s are less impressed. As expected I suppose. I think I fell victim to the hype train reviews and expected far more out of the lens than I should have given it falls into the "budget" category.

Of our local group - most shoot Sony now and 6 of us got our hands on the lens. 5 of us have or are reselling it. But then again - all of us have the 300GM, 600GM, or both.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you.All conversations are mostly centred around here on Still photography.How ever slowly & staedily wild life videos are gaining traction & am sure more people would start shooting videos too
We have A 1 & 200 600 as well as 300 f 2.8(with 1.4 & 2 TC) as well as Z9 with 400 f 4..5 (as well as many Nikon F lenses including 500 PF)
I & my wife do lot of birding as well as safaris (all hand held since we do fair amount of hiking too) .While primes are great for stills , it is zooms that we prefer for videos specially for animals.How ever Zooms are heavy & videos are shaky.Hence a lighter 200 600 zoom with 5.6 would be great for our requirements & we wont mind even it is expensive
For post processing of videos i have been using Da vinci & i am able to stabilise the videos pretty well
To some, lighter & longer zooms with 5.6 may look like a niche now,.How ever flagships were niche few years back & now it is no more a niche
I am sharing two of our video which were shot at really low light at dawn & dusk respectively ,which would have been very grainy for stills
(Note - The first video looks brighter due to color grading to give it a sunny look)

At dawn

At dusk
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I still want to get the 300GM but will definitely sell the 600 first. Honestly getting tired of the bulk and really loved my short stent with the loaner 300GM. It would honestly be all I need.
Click to expand...
I am pretty happy with 300 with 2 TC & now got a 1.4 TC too for dawn & dusk shooting of wild animals .( both still & videos)
i had rented a 600 f 4 for my Kenya trip in 2022. I will not be doing that for our planned Kenya trip this year
 
Member's gallery
GrandNagus50 said:
Each to his/her own. I am feeling feisty today and I will respond.

I like zoom versatility. If nothing else, it makes it much easier to locate a bird in the foliage quickly and then zoom in close. It also eliminates a lot of need to "zoom with your feet," plus it saves a lot of the fiddliness of putting on and taking off teleconverters. In some situations, this can be a thing.

The OEM foot is not great, but once in the field and actually using the lens, I found am not bothered. The hood is fine.

As for IQ, I have evolved over the years from serious pixel peeping to the school of thought that thinks "sharp enough" is sharp enough. I don't go as far as Ken Rockwell with this stance, but I think he is correct when he asserts that many people compulse way too much about "sharpness" and hence talk themselves out of using lenses that are just fine and maybe don't break the bank. Can one tell the difference between the highest quality fixed focal length tele and a budget zoom? Of course, but it really only matters if you are cropping heavily and/or making huge enlargements. For what most of us use our cameras for these days (online reproduction), a "good" consumer zoom (like the 400-800) is plenty sharp enough, and this before even bringing up the subject of judicious post-processing sharpening. And yes, whatever CA there is will almost surely be eliminated once DxO creates a lens profile for the Sony zoom.

As for size, the 400-800 weighs 1.25 pounds less than the Sony 600 f4. To me that's significant. Would I rather have a 600 mm f4 that costs 4x as much? Heck yes. We are talking apples and oranges here.

I own a few really ridiculously sharp tele lenses, including the Panasonic Leica 200mm f2.8 for M43, the Olympus 300 f4 for M43, and the Nikon 600mm f4G VR. I do revel in how sharp the images are coming straight out of the camera. But this doesn't stop me from owning, using, and enjoying lenses that are more versatile even though they are not quite as sharp.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with above and love the versatility of a zoom lens. Over here in Europe I do most of my photography from hides and a GM600 (which I had) is totally useless . A zoom is the way to go and so is the GM300 with and without converters….im glad I sold both the GM600/GM400… if using a lens like the 400-800 means slightly less image quality : I can live with that. Differences between lenses nowadays are in my opinion academical and I don’t think anyone would be able to distinguish the optical performance differences between lenses.
Rene
 
Member's gallery
It's ironic how much we've gone full circle. I remember my early forays into WL photography with my old Canon 300 f/2.8 which I used extensively for sports. First up, a 1.4x TC and then the 2x. It produced excellent quality images, was smaller, and more compact than larger lens solutions. Nonetheless, I lusted after 500 and 600 f/4's and eventually went that route since the 2x was staying on the 300 f/2.8 all of the time. Now, we have high quality compact, lightweight 300 f/2.8's and I am seeing more folks moving back to them as primary kits. Undoubtedly, the TC's have improved tremendously though I would suspect that they still cause an AF speed penalty. It may be relevant for some and if I am not mistaken, Steve has characterized the amount on the 300GM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top