Sony a9II + 200-600... A Couple Questions

[armchicago]

Considering giving Sony a try but as a hobbyist I’m not ready to migrate fully over and jump in to the expense of the 600 f4, as I already am heavily invested with Nikon’s latest version. The a9II performance is really what I want but I obviously need a lens with it, so my questions are for those of you that have the set up referenced in my post title...

1) Is the 200-600 as great as or better thank Nikon’s 200-500? I understand all the specs, the internal zoom, etc. Just looking for real world users’ take.

2) For hand holding, does that lens balance better on the a9II without or without the battery grip? I have Nikons 500 PF and for handholding it’s way better balanced without the battery grips, but I know that camera is a bit smaller than the DSLRs.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Steve]

We have a 200-600 and although I don't use it nearly as much as my wife, I have found it to be a step up from the 200-500. Optically, it seems just as good (haven't done a controlled test, just looking at results), AF is faster, and you get an extra 100mm. The internal zoom alone is a huge upgrade. Put it this way - if my d6 and a9ii were sitting on the shelf with the 200-500 and 200-600 mounted, I'd grab the Sony every time.

The 200-600 is heavy hunk of glass and I personally like it better balanced with a grip. It weighs noticeably more than the 500PF in the field - that lens I'm pretty happy with or without the grip, but I do like the grip with the 200-600 (just my opinion though - it's very subjective). Still, I'd say if you buy it, try without the grip first and then add it if you don't like it.

 

[armchicago]

We have a 200-600 and although I don't use it nearly as much as my wife, I have found it to be a step up from the 200-500. Optically, it seems just as good (haven't done a controlled test, just looking at results), AF is faster, and you get an extra 100mm. The internal zoom alone is a huge upgrade. Put it this way - if my d6 and a9ii were sitting on the shelf with the 200-500 and 200-600 mounted, I'd grab the Sony every time.

The 200-600 is heavy hunk of glass and I personally like it better balanced with a grip. It weighs noticeably more than the 500PF in the field - that lens I'm pretty happy with or without the grip, but I do like the grip with the 200-600 (just my opinion though - it's very subjective). Still, I'd say if you buy it, try without the grip first and then add it if you don't like it.

Thanks for the quick response, Steve! Curious why picked up some Sony gear... I don't believe it was mentioned in any of your videos? Just to be better informed for your workshop clients or was there a particular attribute(s) that made you pull the trigger? I get the impression you still largely use your Nikon DSLRs? Thanks, again!

 

[Steve]

Thanks for the quick response, Steve! Curious why picked up some Sony gear... I don't believe it was mentioned in any of your videos? Just to be better informed for your workshop clients or was there a particular attribute(s) that made you pull the trigger? I get the impression you still largely use your Nikon DSLRs? Thanks, again!

A little of both, actually. I really liked the idea of mirrorless and had hoped the Z cameras would be what I wanted - they weren't (at least not from an action standpoint). So, I tried a Sony a9ii and shortly after started building a more complete system with them. I'm currently shooting both and probably will for the foreseeable future. Both systems are good and it does help with workshops and such to have experience with both setups.

 

[Jason]

I'm sort of in the same boat. I currently use my D500 and 200-500 for the most part. I am wanting to add a mirrorless setup and I've tried a Z7 which I sold. I am wanting something sooner rather than later and nobody knows the capability of the ZII yet. I had thought about giving up on mirrorles for now and just grabbing a D850. Then I had the idea of trying Sony since their AF is proven. I am thinking of ordering a 200-600 and give it a try on one of my older Sony bodies and if I like what I see I would get either an A7RIV or an A9. I even wonder if an A6500 or 6600 paired with the 200-600 might be a beastly (and affordable) little setup.

 

[Anjin San]

A little of both, actually. I really liked the idea of mirrorless and had hoped the Z cameras would be what I wanted - they weren't (at least not from an action standpoint). So, I tried a Sony a9ii and shortly after started building a more complete system with them. I'm currently shooting both and probably will for the foreseeable future. Both systems are good and it does help with workshops and such to have experience with both setups.

How much different is the Sony menu system vs Nikon and do you have much trouble with the switch? I've been thinking about the Z7II but with the non improvement in usable frame rate we saw from the Z6II manual post yesterday I started to wonder whether going mirrorless at all since I do some BIF and wildlife action as well as travel and landscape stuff. Then I got to thinking that everybody seems to like the Sony for BIF and it has good performance although I think you said you still preferred the DSLR for BIF. Also…the Z7II actually ends up heavier than the D7500 with the 500PF I'm lusting after since you have to add the 10 oz FTZ adapter to use the 500PF. So…I added the Sony to the "what if" comparison list but if there's an issue with meaning and switching back and forth that's a down tick for going that way.

 

[Jason]

Compared to Nikon (and anything lol) Sonys menu system is atrocious. Their touchscreen functionality and appearance is also stone age IMO. But all systems seem to have their trade offs.

 

[Steve]

How much different is the Sony menu system vs Nikon and do you have much trouble with the switch? I've been thinking about the Z7II but with the non improvement in usable frame rate we saw from the Z6II manual post yesterday I started to wonder whether going mirrorless at all since I do some BIF and wildlife action as well as travel and landscape stuff. Then I got to thinking that everybody seems to like the Sony for BIF and it has good performance although I think you said you still preferred the DSLR for BIF. Also…the Z7II actually ends up heavier than the D7500 with the 500PF I'm lusting after since you have to add the 10 oz FTZ adapter to use the 500PF. So…I added the Sony to the "what if" comparison list but if there's an issue with meaning and switching back and forth that's a down tick for going that way.

Oh, make no mistake - the menus and setup are vastly different between the two brands. There is a learning curve for sure and it can take time. I have it mostly down now, took me a couple days of messing with the menus to see what was what, but also keep in mind I've been teaching / using / working with technology and especially cameras for years (heck, I wrote my first computer program when I was about 9 years old), so I tend to adapt quickly. Oh, and as Jason mentioned, the touch screen is all but unless.

As for DSLR vs mirrorless and BIF - I do think for Nikon there's no question that right now the DSLRs still have the advantage. No matter how great the AF system is in the Z cameras, there's still the lower frame rate to contend with and almost surely some lag as well that you don't have with a DSLR. However, Sony has more or less overcome those problems in their newest cameras (the a9ii in particular), and in fact, the a9ii tends to be more primary action camera now.

However, we're really in the early stages here for everyone. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next year or two. Some of the rumors I've seen on Nikon Rumors about the upcoming pro Nikon mirrorless are really impressive. It's really tough to say what the "best" system will be five years (or heck, two years) from now.

 

[Anjin San]

I figured they would be enough different to cause issues until I got familiar with it but you're right…we're still pretty early in the mirrorless revolution/evolution process. I'm definitely getting my wife a Z50 to replace her D7100…lighter even with the 2 lens kit which will considerably improve her current 15-55 lens reach. I realize the 50 isn't either the 6II or 7II…but can at least play around with it for action and see how things go…might end up just sticking with my D7500 for another year or two until I see how things evolve…and if I like the 50 might even get a second one of those for myself for travel purposes when super long lenses become much less important than light weight. After all…most of our travel planned will be overseas and we won't likely have a car too often which means we'll each have our technology backpack with us all the time…no way we're going to leave that stuff in the hotel room…and between us we'll have two sets of camera gear, 2 iPads and iPhones, and just a single laptop which we'll share while traveling since doing PP on the iPad really doesn't work very well so far due to storage size and limited internet connectivity issues.

I really don't want to introduce a second camera system anyway…you end up duplicating a lot of things if you do in addition to the different menu/control system issues…but figured that due diligence demanded at least a consideration of the idea.

I'm also starting to believe the I need to rethink a bit the whole idea of going FX instead of DX…especially given where most of my images end up which is on the travel blog…while FX sensors are "better"…by the time you include all the drawbacks (weight, financial, lens reach, and otherwise) that come along with that better sensor and consider where the images end up maybe the overall bang for the buck just isn't there.

 

[Jason]

@Neil Laubenthal I don't know what your current lens collection is but keep in mind that if your lenses are all/mostly DX lenses no matter which brand of FX system you buy in to you will be replacing lenses. That being the case, If you have an inkling that you may want to switch brands now is the time. Better to hash it out now then after you've invested too much to switch.
Another thought, If you stick with Nikon and go FF I suggest a Z7II or D850 over the lower MP ones. Then you could actually use your DX lenses in crop mode.

 

[armchicago]

A little of both, actually. I really liked the idea of mirrorless and had hoped the Z cameras would be what I wanted - they weren't (at least not from an action standpoint). So, I tried a Sony a9ii and shortly after started building a more complete system with them. I'm currently shooting both and probably will for the foreseeable future. Both systems are good and it does help with workshops and such to have experience with both setups.

Thanks, Steve!

 

[nokk]

the 200-600mm is a pretty good lens, it's the only lens i own for my a7riv. not sure how it stacks up against any nikon offerings. i don't use a grip on the camera and i think the balance is pretty decent in my hand.

 

[EricBowles]

Considering giving Sony a try but as a hobbyist I’m not ready to migrate fully over and jump in to the expense of the 600 f4, as I already am heavily invested with Nikon’s latest version. The a9II performance is really what I want but I obviously need a lens with it, so my questions are for those of you that have the set up referenced in my post title...

1) Is the 200-600 as great as or better thank Nikon’s 200-500? I understand all the specs, the internal zoom, etc. Just looking for real world users’ take.

2) For hand holding, does that lens balance better on the a9II without or without the battery grip? I have Nikons 500 PF and for handholding it’s way better balanced without the battery grips, but I know that camera is a bit smaller than the DSLRs.

Thanks in advance!

I'd sit tight until you hear about the AF performance of the Nikon Z6ii. The second processor has made a big difference on other cameras.

Part of the decision is the degree to which fast moving wildlife is what you photograph. If it's a major priority, you might optimize your equipment in that direction. But for most people, it's a mix. I find the AF accuracy of the Nikon Z6/Z7 is more important than AF speed for my images. I have no problem with photographing moving subjects like jumping horses, wading birds, etc. but these are larger subjects easier to track.

The Nikon 200-500 and the Sony 200-600 are consumer lenses. They are very good for the price point, but if you are chasing performance the 500 f/5.6, 500 f/4, 600 f/4 are all going to perform better. So where do you want to draw the line?

Likewise camera bodies make a difference, but are you going to chase the latest camera body. Nikon's mirrorless action camera has not been released. I suspect the Z6ii will be quite good. But Nikon will release a better camera for action in the next year or so - and it could well be better than any competitor. The top companies are constantly leap-frogging each other and none of them have a long term advantage. But - if you want the state of the art camera body, it comes with a cost premium.

Finally - are your skills at a level where the camera is the issue? Even the best camera needs the photographer to do their job. Technique is a priority, and before investing in new gear be sure you are able to track your subject and apply the settings needed to get the image you want most of the time. Upgrades provide small incremental differences.

 

[armchicago]

the 200-600mm is a pretty good lens, it's the only lens i own for my a7riv. not sure how it stacks up against any nikon offerings. i don't use a grip on the camera and i think the balance is pretty decent in my hand.

Thanks!

 

[armchicago]

I'd sit tight until you hear about the AF performance of the Nikon Z6ii. The second processor has made a big difference on other cameras.

Part of the decision is the degree to which fast moving wildlife is what you photograph. If it's a major priority, you might optimize your equipment in that direction. But for most people, it's a mix. I find the AF accuracy of the Nikon Z6/Z7 is more important than AF speed for my images. I have no problem with photographing moving subjects like jumping horses, wading birds, etc. but these are larger subjects easier to track.

The Nikon 200-500 and the Sony 200-600 are consumer lenses. They are very good for the price point, but if you are chasing performance the 500 f/5.6, 500 f/4, 600 f/4 are all going to perform better. So where do you want to draw the line?

Likewise camera bodies make a difference, but are you going to chase the latest camera body. Nikon's mirrorless action camera has not been released. I suspect the Z6ii will be quite good. But Nikon will release a better camera for action in the next year or so - and it could well be better than any competitor. The top companies are constantly leap-frogging each other and none of them have a long term advantage. But - if you want the state of the art camera body, it comes with a cost premium.

Finally - are your skills at a level where the camera is the issue? Even the best camera needs the photographer to do their job. Technique is a priority, and before investing in new gear be sure you are able to track your subject and apply the settings needed to get the image you want most of the time. Upgrades provide small incremental differences.

Thanks, Eric. I enjoy birds in flight and I’d like to think I’m pretty good. Gear upgrades don’t make the photographer but they can significantly help in capturing things with more ease... I have The PF and 600E and both largely did that when I upgraded to them from my consumer stuff. Wanted to get some takes on the Sony though without immediately jumping in with another $18k. I love Nikon but I don’t think it can be argued that they are behind.

 

[Anjin San]

@Neil Laubenthal I don't know what your current lens collection is but keep in mind that if your lenses are all/mostly DX lenses no matter which brand of FX system you buy in to you will be replacing lenses. That being the case, If you have an inkling that you may want to switch brands now is the time. Better to hash it out now then after you've invested too much to switch.
Another thought, If you stick with Nikon and go FF I suggest a Z7II or D850 over the lower MP ones. Then you could actually use your DX lenses in crop mode.

Thanks...I have a mix of DX and FX lenses...so will most likely stay with Nikon. I had already figured that only the higher MP FX bodies were a viable upgrade given my general shooting style so as to help overcome the loss of the crop factor...primarily as my long lens is an FX lens already.

 

[Anjin San]

I'd sit tight until you hear about the AF performance of the Nikon Z6ii. The second processor has made a big difference on other cameras.

Part of the decision is the degree to which fast moving wildlife is what you photograph. If it's a major priority, you might optimize your equipment in that direction. But for most people, it's a mix. I find the AF accuracy of the Nikon Z6/Z7 is more important than AF speed for my images. I have no problem with photographing moving subjects like jumping horses, wading birds, etc. but these are larger subjects easier to track.

The Nikon 200-500 and the Sony 200-600 are consumer lenses. They are very good for the price point, but if you are chasing performance the 500 f/5.6, 500 f/4, 600 f/4 are all going to perform better. So where do you want to draw the line?

Likewise camera bodies make a difference, but are you going to chase the latest camera body. Nikon's mirrorless action camera has not been released. I suspect the Z6ii will be quite good. But Nikon will release a better camera for action in the next year or so - and it could well be better than any competitor. The top companies are constantly leap-frogging each other and none of them have a long term advantage. But - if you want the state of the art camera body, it comes with a cost premium.

Finally - are your skills at a level where the camera is the issue? Even the best camera needs the photographer to do their job. Technique is a priority, and before investing in new gear be sure you are able to track your subject and apply the settings needed to get the image you want most of the time. Upgrades provide small incremental differences.

Thanks Eric...fast movers aren’t the highest priority but are up there and I am seriously considering the 500PF. I’m also not making any final decision yet,,,waiting on real world looks at the shipping Z7II before doing anything. Replacing my wife’s 7100 with the Z50 is another related but separate upgrade not really dependent on what I do for myself. The problem with waiting for the next big thing is that it never gets here...it’s just like laptops or phones or tablets...I’m still in the info gathering stage at this point.
skills...well I think they’re good...but then I’m sure we all do. I’ve been satisfied with my 7500 and Tamron 150-600 but am always on the lookout for how to make things better.

 

[DavidT]

the 200-600mm is a pretty good lens, it's the only lens i own for my a7riv. not sure how it stacks up against any nikon offerings. i don't use a grip on the camera and i think the balance is pretty decent in my hand.

I started following some Sony A7RIV and A9II forums on facebook and I have seen a few mention the 200-600 on the A7RIV is not a good combo and that most people stop using it and switch to the A9II. From what I gather people don't like the higher ISO performance of the A7RIV and also suggested the lens isn't optically strong enough for the higher MP sensor. Any thoughts? I was a bit surprised by reading this.

 

[Steve]

I started following some Sony A7RIV and A9II forums on facebook and I have seen a few mention the 200-600 on the A7RIV is not a good combo and that most people stop using it and switch to the A9II. From what I gather people don't like the higher ISO performance of the A7RIV and also suggested the lens isn't optically strong enough for the higher MP sensor. Any thoughts? I was a bit surprised by reading this.

My understanding was that there was an issue with that lens and the a7R4 that's been corrected with firmware. However, I haven't done any updates to verify it.

 

[nokk]

I started following some Sony A7RIV and A9II forums on facebook and I have seen a few mention the 200-600 on the A7RIV is not a good combo and that most people stop using it and switch to the A9II. From what I gather people don't like the higher ISO performance of the A7RIV and also suggested the lens isn't optically strong enough for the higher MP sensor. Any thoughts? I was a bit surprised by reading this.

the a7riv in general has poor high iso performance, that's what happens when you cramp 61 mp into a full frame sensor. but the lens is sharp enough for me. i have a feeling that the people who say it isn't a good combo are looking at it zoomed in at 100%, which is a lot closer few than being zoomed in at 100% on a sensor with fewer mp.

my previous wildlife kit was a canon 7d mk ii and 100-400mm. the 200-600mm is absolutely useless when coupled with the 1.4x tc, but it's fine on it's own. 24x36" canvas prints are the largest prints i've had done, though i could go bigger if i found some frames cheap enough to resell and more wall space in my shop booth.

i haven't upgraded the firmware on my camera, i've only had it since february. not sure when the firmware update came out or if i have it.

 

[RecalcitrantRon]

The Nikon 200-500 and the Sony 200-600 are consumer lenses. They are very good for the price point, but if you are chasing performance the 500 f/5.6, 500 f/4, 600 f/4 are all going to perform better. So where do you want to draw the line?

Unfortunately for me, my loving wife has drawn the line at lenses that cost as much a decent car. Hence no f/4's in my future except for rentals. :(

 

[Karl]

the a7riv in general has poor high iso performance, that's what happens when you cramp 61 mp into a full frame sensor. but the lens is sharp enough for me. i have a feeling that the people who say it isn't a good combo are looking at it zoomed in at 100%, which is a lot closer few than being zoomed in at 100% on a sensor with fewer mp.

my previous wildlife kit was a canon 7d mk ii and 100-400mm. the 200-600mm is absolutely useless when coupled with the 1.4x tc, but it's fine on it's own. 24x36" canvas prints are the largest prints i've had done, though i could go bigger if i found some frames cheap enough to resell and more wall space in my shop booth.

i haven't upgraded the firmware on my camera, i've only had it since february. not sure when the firmware update came out or if i have it.

Not my experience... I have the a7Riv + 200-600 and I'm getting sharp pictures with the 1.4 TC. It does work best when there is enough light and the cropping isn't huge (even though the 61 mp helps immensely with cropping). High ISO is usually dealt with in Topaz DeNoise AI. Granted, the 600 f/4 would be better. Here's a photo (840mm, f/9, 1/500, ISO 400 with a7Riv + 200-600 + 1.4 TC):

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

 

[gbodave]

I'm using the Sony 200-600mm on the Sony A7R3 and have no complaints. I'm at 600mm most of the time and haven't detected any issues at that focal length. I find the lens to be quite light, certainly way lighter than the Sigma 150-600 I had when with the D750, and it's no problem carrying it around all day. I find my combo isn't creating any unacceptable noise issues up to ISO 4000 but as Karl says Topaz Denoise AI takes all the worries out of high ISO anyway.

 

[Roaring 40s]

Not my experience... I have the a7Riv + 200-600 and I'm getting sharp pictures with the 1.4 TC. It does work best when there is enough light and the cropping isn't huge (even though the 61 mp helps immensely with cropping). High ISO is usually dealt with in Topaz DeNoise AI. Granted, the 600 f/4 would be better. Here's a photo (840mm, f/9, 1/500, ISO 400 with a7Riv + 200-600 + 1.4 TC):
View attachment 11744

Denoising doesn't give you back the detail that you lost to noise.

As for the A7R IV, compared to the R III, by ISO 800 any resolution advantage is lost to noise. See Gordon Laing's YouTube review of the IV and Marc Alhadeff's blog entry on lenses for the IV.