Finding the macro limits of the 200-600 and a9

[spudhead]

For my money they can be equally as difficult and can share some of the same issues. When I was goofing around with it I focused the lens to minimum distance first, and then moved the camera back and forth to find focus on the subject. Similar to macro the DOF is so thin that one tiny movement means no focus. From that standpoint the 200-600 is probably more difficult because of the size. It's easier to cheat and back off minimum distance just enough to let the lens do the focus work. If you ever wanted to know just how unstable you are when pretending to be a tripod, give that a try. It's an eye opener!

I see your play on words Tim

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Agree Macro is way harder than close focussing as indicated by Spud.........shooting close focus with an a9 and stopped down on the 200-600 to 200mm at f7.1 and minimum focus distance of 2.2 m the resulting 4.5mm DOF cant compare with a DOF at less than a mm with a true macro lens at minimum focus distance 1:1. The fundamental decision is whether to partially focus or focus stack...either way a much more challenging situation., including subject nervousness if a live subject.

At 600mm the lower DOF does become more of a challenge but rises substantially from 0 .7mm at min focus of 2.8m distance to 3.5mm as you back off from minimum focus distance. to 5m say. Maybe these are the issues which define the limitations(or benefits) of close focussing with a 200-600mm lens....at true Macro 1:1 and above there is no escape from the very low DOF other then through moving to align a live subject(as an example) parallel to the focal plane or alternatively go for focus stacking in any other orientation to acheive overall focus quality.

The moral of the story is if doing close focussing with a 200-600 it may be better to back off from minimum f0cussing distance from 2.2m to say 5m or more (subject to closing down to 200mm or fully open at 600mm)and achieve a higher DOF to get subjects in total focus.

The ambient lighting level availability in a 3-10 cm gap between subject and lens is another complication of true macro shooting over close focussing with a 200-600mm which again makes things far easier than Macro.

 

[spudhead]

Agree Macro is way harder than close focussing as indicated by Spud.........shooting close focus with an a9 and stopped down on the 200-600 to 200mm at f7.1 and minimum focus distance of 2.2 m the resulting 4.5mm DOF cant compare with a DOF at less than a mm with a true macro lens at minimum focus distance 1:1. The fundamental decision is whether to partially focus or focus stack...either way a much more challenging situation., including subject nervousness if a live subject.

At 600mm the lower DOF does become more of a challenge but rises substantially from 0 .7mm at min focus of 2.8m distance to 3.5mm as you back off from minimum focus distance. to 5m say. Maybe these are the issues which define the limitations(or benefits) of close focussing with a 200-600mm lens....at true Macro 1:1 and above there is no escape from the very low DOF other then through moving to align a live subject(as an example) parallel to the focal plane or alternatively go for focus stacking in any other orientation to acheive overall focus quality.

The moral of the story is if doing close focussing with a 200-600 it may be better to back off from minimum f0cussing distance from 2.2m to say 5m or more (subject to closing down to 200mm or fully open at 600mm)and achieve a higher DOF to get subjects in total focus.

The ambient lighting level availability in a 3-10 cm gap between subject and lens is another complication of true macro shooting over close focussing with a 200-600mm which again makes things far easier than Macro

Hi the shots were all at 600mm but none the less, it is without question harder to use a true macro lens at least in my own experience

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi the shots were all at 600mm but none the less, it is without question harder to use a true macro lens at least in my own experience

Totally agree.......

 

[iain clyne]

It's a lens that never stops giving. This was quite close, not macro but close to minimum focus distance.

DSC08862 by Iain Clyne, on Flickr

 

[spudhead]

It's a lens that never stops giving. This was quite close, not macro but close to minimum focus distance.

DSC08862 by Iain Clyne, on Flickr

Thanks for adding to the thread Ian

 

[Paul stuart]

I find the 200-600 to be quite poor for close work ,ok on a hi resolution sensor you can crop as well ,but the minimum working distance of 2.4m also as the focus breathing is very poor the closer you get to your subject the shorter your f/l becomes really anyoing sony ,the lens is great for mid to long distance ,wishing sony would have another option in the line up ,some middle ground tele photos ie 500mm f4 400mm 4.5 anyway this explains focus breathing at close range https://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/sony-fe-200-600mm-f-5-6-6-3-g-oss-review/

 

[spudhead]

I find the 200-600 to be quite poor for close work ,ok on a hi resolution sensor you can crop as well ,but the minimum working distance of 2.4m also as the focus breathing is very poor the closer you get to your subject the shorter your f/l becomes really anyoing sony ,the lens is great for mid to long distance ,wishing sony would have another option in the line up ,some middle ground tele photos ie 500mm f4 400mm 4.5 anyway this explains focus breathing at close range https://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/sony-fe-200-600mm-f-5-6-6-3-g-oss-review/

Thanks Paul excellent link and read should help a lot

 

[spudhead]

From the article:
Please note that the 200-600mm’s shorter MFD means you can get closer to the subject and achieve a higher magnification than the prime despite the breathing effect.

So it still gets higher magnification than the prime. Focus breathing is extremely common. One 200mm Nikon lens has it so badly it ends up at about 120mm. Based on those two examples alone I wouldn't characterize it as 'very poor', it may in fact be above average.

Rather than be concerned about lowering FL at close distance, I'll concentrate on what it can do.

similar thoughts to me Tim and I was aware of some of the techniques regarding focus etc, I have used and tested this lens since I took delivery of it on Uk launch day and believe for 99% of us hobby photographers it's really good at most things and affordable for most. Paul is a really good photographer, and he has the same dilemma as many of us he wants ever better results and more lens options, the wish list he has is similar to mine and honestly is going to be too expensive if it ever happens. I do not have 600 mm f4 prime, but I have had good results with 300 2.8 g close up with and without teleconverters on both a-mount and e-mount but that is probably for another thread.

 

[Paul stuart]

From the article:
Please note that the 200-600mm’s shorter MFD means you can get closer to the subject and achieve a higher magnification than the prime despite the breathing effect.

So it still gets higher magnification than the prime. Focus breathing is extremely common. One 200mm Nikon lens has it so badly it ends up at about 120mm. Based on those two examples alone I wouldn't characterize it as 'very poor', it may in fact be above average.

Rather than be concerned about lowering FL at close distance, I'll concentrate on what it can do.

A 100-400mm gets you closer a better choice sigma ,tamron or gm ,my old m43 olympus 300mm prime at 600mm equiv fl would focus down to 1.2 m and was like 1;3 macro capable ,the problem is that for close up images (200-600mm) you are not getting a 600mm f/l and more like 500mm f/l ,i do not think that big primes are a soloution for macro type shots either ,i now carry my samyang 135mm f1;8 that focuses down to 68 cm which is very nice and will crop very well being the sharpest of lenses ,not saying that the lens is bad it is fact super for wildlife and a reasonable size and weight even the 600 does not hold much over it in sharpness ,they just play much better with t/c ,the whole point was the op wanted to do macro with the 200-600 it is not the best choice for this type of application .

 

[spudhead]

A 100-400mm gets you closer a better choice sigma ,tamron or gm ,my old m43 olympus 300mm prime at 600mm equiv fl would focus down to 1.2 m and was like 1;3 macro capable ,the problem is that for close up images (200-600mm) you are not getting a 600mm f/l and more like 500mm f/l ,i do not think that big primes are a soloution for macro type shots either ,i now carry my samyang 135mm f1;8 that focuses down to 68 cm which is very nice and will crop very well being the sharpest of lenses ,not saying that the lens is bad it is fact super for wildlife and a reasonable size and weight even the 600 does not hold much over it in sharpness ,they just play much better with t/c ,the whole point was the op wanted to do macro with the 200-600 it is not the best choice for this type of application .

Paul, I didn't really want to do macro with this lens it was just that people were posting shots with the 200-600 in what I will call close up so I gave it I try some time ago all be it with much less cropping, and then decided to see how far I could crop hence quite a few of the images are soft, and that was part of the exercise. I was in fact a little surprised at how well some of the shots looked given that many are in fact just over 1mp and a few under. I fully understand that as you explain there are lots of better options, thanks Paul for your wise comments and bothering to look

 

[iain clyne]

In order to make these into pseudo-macros, we've been cropping them to an insane size to see how much the lens can take. It'd be cool to know if this is a crop and how much (remaining MP is a good comparison number). Also, how far will it go? SOme of @spudhead's crops are under 1MP!

Its about 70% the size of the original.

 

[Paul stuart]

There are clearly many, many lenses that do better at closeup shooting and pseudo-macro than the 200-600. That's not the point of the thread. You're looking at this from a technical standpoint and that's not the intent. It it's not meant to promote one lens over others, nor proclaim the 200-600 a superior lens for closeup or macro. The thread was borne of Gary's realization that in addition to being a fine, relatively compact long telephoto zoom, it's also credible for closer images with a little finagling in post. More like:

"Gee, look how well this does at close focus, I wonder how much we can get away with?"

It's about having a little fun instead of worrying about specifications.

i am looking at it from a technical standpoint ,there are better options and worse options ,it is nice to know the limitations ,i agree go have fun with your setup whatever it maybe.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I'm posting this shot, not because it's good, but the fence rail shows exactly how narrow the depth of field is at this magnification and wide open aperture.

• ILCE-6600
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 400

 

[spudhead]

I'm posting this shot, not because it's good, but the fence rail shows exactly how narrow the depth of field is at this magnification and wide open aperture. View attachment 25329

Dave thanks for adding to the thread

 

[spudhead]

edited these tonight overdue but I thought I would add them file sizes from 1.8mb -down to 0.75 mb

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 2000

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1600

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-9
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 800