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).
I like mine - it's a little heavy (not 600 F/4 heavy). It's sharp and has a good range for wildlife. However, there have been mixed results with the a7r4 (and we have experienced those - to the point we won't use that lens with that camera anymore). However, it works perfectly with the a9ii, so it hard to say how it will play with the new one. I'd certainly assume it would work.
Would it be better to get the 100-400 and the 1.4 tele? I really need the 500-600mm range however I see the 100-400 is good at close focusing which could be nice with some small subjects such as butterflies etc. I am willing to buy one lens but not going to build a system until I know for sure I want to invest any further with Sony.
My wife tried that combo and we didn't really like the results. The 100-400 by itself is outstanding, but we didn't like it with the TC - and I have a friend with the same combo and he was less than impressed with the TC too. YMMV.
Thank you! I think if Sony is the path I choose I will buy a 600 f4 along with the 100-400. I am not sure keeping the 200-600 is worth it but figure I can sell it without loosing to much.
That's my primary combo
Have you tried the 1.4 on the 200-600?That's my primary combo
However, the 200-600 is handy when you want to go hiking and don't want to carry the heavier 600 F/4 or when you need the versatility of a zoom. It also focuses closer than the 600 F/4 and I have a feeling I'll be using it in the spring for warblers. Just depends on your needs. TBH - my wife and I are considering a second copy so we can both use it at the same time.
Hmm - I don't know if we have. The problem is, neither of us like the resulting F/9 max opening. I know I haven't, I'll have to double check with my wife and see if she ever tried it.
I would agree with you. I saw this last night in a video and found this interesting.
LOL, I'm guessing we never used it with a TC then - that's something we would have noticed for sure!!
Oops - my bad. I didn't check and I remember the 200-500 feeling heavier in my hand. I'll fix the post.
Not the right camera for shooting wildlife. Maybe someday as a landscape camera but not for a bit.
Just to set the record straight...that is fairly old information. The A9 and A9II can go to f16. The A7RIV goes to f11. The A1 now goes to f22. The f8 was only back in the III series days and older.
Good to know!
March 29, 2020.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
February 14, 2020-2.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
February 02, 2020.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
Thanks for this post. Less anxiety with my A1/200-600 purchase now. Great, sharp shots!It is a great lens, I have made good use of it with and without the 1.4TC. I also had the 100-400GM lens. After getting the 200-600, the 100-400 served no purpose other than acting as a semi-macro type lens for flowers, butteries, dragonflies, frogs etc. I did controlled testing and found that at 400mm both lenses were essentially equal in IQ. Comparing at 600mm (or 560mm) on the 200-600 vs 560mm on the 100-400/1.4 TC there was a clear difference where the 200-600 was sharper. I found myself never picking up the 100-400 anymore (except for the occasional semi-macro stuff in my backyard when I was bored). I eventually sold my 100-400, but to be fair that was also influenced by buying the R5/100-500 which would do any semi-macro stuff I cared to do anyways. I may not have sold the 100-400 if not for picking up the Canon kit.
I still think that the best value in a MILC bird photography system (and I've owned just about everyone out there worth owning) is the A9 and 200-600 and 1.4TC. Like Steve mentions I had issues with the A7RIV and 200-600 so I found more success in putting the 1.4TC on the lens on the A9(A9II) and making up most of the reach instead of using the lens on the A7RIV. I did eventually find a set of settings that gave me decent results with the A7RIV/200-600 but I still wouldn't recommend it as a first choice. I see no reason why the A1 won't be every bit as good as the A9 with that lens and should be better if the specs correlate with the extra performance one would expect from reading them.
I mean we have 1.5x faster sensor read speed providing 2x AF calculations per second (120 vs 60 in the A9) and that is compared to the already excellent A9. Compared to the A7RIV that does only 20 AF calculations per second, the A1 is now doing 6x more calculations. I can't imagine a reason the A1 wouldn't be excellent with the 200-600...but never say never. We will have to see for ourselves or maybe get a better idea once the review embargo ends this Thursday.
Just a few examples of A9(II)/200-600/1.4TC shots:
Wow! Gorgeous Shots!It is a great lens, I have made good use of it with and without the 1.4TC. I also had the 100-400GM lens. After getting the 200-600, the 100-400 served no purpose other than acting as a semi-macro type lens for flowers, butteries, dragonflies, frogs etc. I did controlled testing and found that at 400mm both lenses were essentially equal in IQ. Comparing at 600mm (or 560mm) on the 200-600 vs 560mm on the 100-400/1.4 TC there was a clear difference where the 200-600 was sharper. I found myself never picking up the 100-400 anymore (except for the occasional semi-macro stuff in my backyard when I was bored). I eventually sold my 100-400, but to be fair that was also influenced by buying the R5/100-500 which would do any semi-macro stuff I cared to do anyways. I may not have sold the 100-400 if not for picking up the Canon kit.
I still think that the best value in a MILC bird photography system (and I've owned just about everyone out there worth owning) is the A9 and 200-600 and 1.4TC. Like Steve mentions I had issues with the A7RIV and 200-600 so I found more success in putting the 1.4TC on the lens on the A9(A9II) and making up most of the reach instead of using the lens on the A7RIV. I did eventually find a set of settings that gave me decent results with the A7RIV/200-600 but I still wouldn't recommend it as a first choice. I see no reason why the A1 won't be every bit as good as the A9 with that lens and should be better if the specs correlate with the extra performance one would expect from reading them.
I mean we have 1.5x faster sensor read speed providing 2x AF calculations per second (120 vs 60 in the A9) and that is compared to the already excellent A9. Compared to the A7RIV that does only 20 AF calculations per second, the A1 is now doing 6x more calculations. I can't imagine a reason the A1 wouldn't be excellent with the 200-600...but never say never. We will have to see for ourselves or maybe get a better idea once the review embargo ends this Thursday.
Just a few examples of A9(II)/200-600/1.4TC shots:
I’ve read that the 200-600 doesn’t do well on the a7r4. I wonder since the a1 is a higher MP camera if the results will be the same or if it will work like it does on the a9?It is a great lens, I have made good use of it with and without the 1.4TC. I also had the 100-400GM lens. After getting the 200-600, the 100-400 served no purpose other than acting as a semi-macro type lens for flowers, butteries, dragonflies, frogs etc. I did controlled testing and found that at 400mm both lenses were essentially equal in IQ. Comparing at 600mm (or 560mm) on the 200-600 vs 560mm on the 100-400/1.4 TC there was a clear difference where the 200-600 was sharper. I found myself never picking up the 100-400 anymore (except for the occasional semi-macro stuff in my backyard when I was bored). I eventually sold my 100-400, but to be fair that was also influenced by buying the R5/100-500 which would do any semi-macro stuff I cared to do anyways. I may not have sold the 100-400 if not for picking up the Canon kit.
I still think that the best value in a MILC bird photography system (and I've owned just about everyone out there worth owning) is the A9 and 200-600 and 1.4TC. Like Steve mentions I had issues with the A7RIV and 200-600 so I found more success in putting the 1.4TC on the lens on the A9(A9II) and making up most of the reach instead of using the lens on the A7RIV. I did eventually find a set of settings that gave me decent results with the A7RIV/200-600 but I still wouldn't recommend it as a first choice. I see no reason why the A1 won't be every bit as good as the A9 with that lens and should be better if the specs correlate with the extra performance one would expect from reading them.
I mean we have 1.5x faster sensor read speed providing 2x AF calculations per second (120 vs 60 in the A9) and that is compared to the already excellent A9. Compared to the A7RIV that does only 20 AF calculations per second, the A1 is now doing 6x more calculations. I can't imagine a reason the A1 wouldn't be excellent with the 200-600...but never say never. We will have to see for ourselves or maybe get a better idea once the review embargo ends this Thursday.
Just a few examples of A9(II)/200-600/1.4TC shots:
It's in German, but you can watch the display and see just how good it is.
This is great! Thank you for sharing!
Well I’m dipping my toe into Sony. I’m keeping my a1 preorder and ordered a lens, grip, card with reader and an extra battery. I just dropped $9,500 in Sony gear to give it a try. Either I’m going to be blown away or not. If not I’ll return and keep my Nikon gear and use it until Nikon can blow me away with something new. My gut tells me Sony AF is going to impress me.
View attachment 14078View attachment 14079
