Ok so lets talk about a lens a lot of people have on here have 200-600 and experiences, likes, dislikes, are you struggling, or loving

[spudhead]

Ok so I got the 200-600 on release day at full fat price, I had the a7iii at that point and had a few issues at first but soon got them ironed out, I got the a9 and the lens works great with that. So for me it is my go too since I started birds in flight shots a few months ago and yes I have the 1.4 teleconverter but I do not use that so much here in dull Uk.
I often shoot the larger birds at 200-300 metres away and even further on a 24 megapixel camera but note some people say they do not get decent results at that range, so please post up your likes, dislikes, issues, and thoughts on the lens in real life use, please reference camera bodies you use it on so members can see thanks people in advance

 

[russellsnr]

Hi, OK I will go first.
I came over from Canon and purchased a Sony A9 along with the 200-600mm lens for bird photography and thought after my first outing WOW!!! what a big difference in image quality SOOC, I have since moved now to the A7 IV mainly for the bird eye auto focus and along with the 200-600mm it's a killer.
The biggest downside of the 200-600mm for me anyway is the weight and second I wish it had an Arca Swiss plate as standard but for todays price it has to be one of the best buys out there. Russ.

 

[Gaz]

It was one of the first lenses I purchased after my initial travel zoom. I have A7iv.

It’s heavy, to be frank. I grab the 135mm GM when I’m looking for something longer and I’ll use it on clear image zoom to pump it up to 270mm F1.8. It’s near perfect up to there.

With the 200-600 I tend to find a place to sit and rest it on a knee. Otherwise it’s a tripod. Hopefully I can photograph the moon tonight with it.

Given that I tend to stay in 1 spot with it, I use it less than the 135GM for BIF. Though it’s brilliant when I use it.

Gaz

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 135mm F1.8 GM
• 135.0 mm
• ƒ/14
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 12800

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 12800

 

[iamdlewis]

I ordered the 200-600 upon release because though the 100-400 is amazing it does end at 400.

Likes:
- The short throw to go from 200 to 600
- Image quality with the A1 & A9
Dislikes:
- The size as it does make it difficult to travel with
- Image quality inconsistently with the A7R4
Between:
- The tracking speed is great for the majority of what I shoot
- Weight. It helps to remove the foot.

This is my most used lens but not my most loved lens.

 

[-ST-]

Hi, Gary

Ok so I got the 200-600 on release day at full fat price, I had the a7iii at that point and had a few issues at first but soon got them ironed out, I got the a9 and the lens works great with that. So for me it is my go too since I started birds in flight shots a few months ago and yes I have the 1.4 teleconverter but I do not use that so much here in dull Uk.

I didn't think I had any significant interest in wildlife, birds in flight, or small birds, but after joining this community at the beginning of the year, I caught the bug. It took upgrades through January and February (24-105 to 70-200 GM II, and A7 IV to A1), until it seemed I had no choice. Finally, a month ago, I got the 200-600.

I often shoot the larger birds at 200-300 metres away and even further on a 24 megapixel camera but note some people say they do not get decent results at that range, so please post up your likes, dislikes, issues, and thoughts on the lens in real life use, please reference camera bodies you use it on so members can see thanks people in advance

I've taken the 200-600 on the A1, out every morning since I got it. That's 10-20 km daily. Sadly, it's still winter here, and apparently our weather is much like yours in the UK, gloomy, grim, and dim, at least at this time of year.

• Pluses:
  • I'm thinking about photography differently
  • I'm learning how to see differently (mainly at a distance) as I look for opportunities to use the 200-600
  • I'm getting some photos that I can't imagine getting any other way, but part of that is also the transition from the A7 IV to the A1
    

    Birds - Why you find crabs on land

    Coming in for breakfast Missed by that much - try again Moments later... And that's why I occasionally find crabs on the ground several meters from the water.

    www.alphashooters.com
• Minuses:
  • The 200-600 mm field of view is too narrow for general use, so as mentioned above, I've started carrying two cameras:
    • A1 + 200-600
    • A7 IV + 24-105 or 16-35
  • Weight: I struggled with the weight at first, but after over 30 outings, I'm getting used to it
  • Size: It's big, but I only have smaller lenses for comparison. I haven't travelled in years, so that's not a concern, but if I have to go anyplace I can't drive, I'll have to do some research. As with any change of equipment, I've had to come up with ways to carry and protect it. No complaints there. It's just part of the gig.
  • Lens hood: I dropped it while trying to mount it on the first day. It landed on some rough gravel and got scuffed up. I much prefer the lens hood on the 70-200 that clicks solidly in place, and you have to press a button to release it. I cringe a little, every time I put it on or take it off
  • F5.6-6.3: Sometimes there's just not enough light to use this lens, and I wish I had brought the 70-200 F2.8 GM II
• Interesting:
  • I'm spending more time than I'm used to standing around looking for opportunities to use the new lens. That is - it has slowed me down as I'm wandering around
  • People notice it
  • There's always something too far away to capture, even with 600 mm
  • I'm having to separate the fun challenges of technical proficiency and artistic expression. This isn't specific to the 200-600, but a reminder that with the new lens comes the opportunity to pursue both with this new field of view
  • I've started carrying two cameras, so I don't miss opportunities best captured with a wider lens (mainly landscapes) or objects closer than the minimum focal length. See this link for more on that:
    

    Cotton Carrier Grey Harness For 2 Cameras - one week review

    Cotton Carrier CCS G3 harness for 2 cameras Summary I've had it a week, carried one, then two cameras for about 75-100 km, this is a keeper. A1 with 200-600 in the center chest holster A7 IV with 24-105 (or 16-35 PZ) in the side holster Update - April 3, 2024 A year later, using the Cotton...

    www.alphashooters.com
  • When I carry two cameras, I shoot mainly at the long and short extremes (600 mm and 24 mm or 16 mm)
  • As much as I like the 70-200 GM II, it hasn't seen much use since I got the 200-600. I'll probably take it out more for street photography when I get into that as the weather improves

Here are some links to previous discussions as I made my way to and with the 200-600

How are you using your FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS?

How are you using your FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3? Inspired by so many wonderful photos here, I'm considering getting one for wildlife (although that's just exploration, not a passion just yet). Run and Gun: Do you carry it around, taking photos here and there in your travels? Set up and wait: Do...

www.alphashooters.com

2X Teleconverter with FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS and A1

I just had to try, even though it was heavily overcast. f/13 needs a lot of light. Handheld - not easy to do. 100% crop 150% crop For anyone following along: I got a GREAT deal on a 2X teleconverter yesterday. Too good to pass up. I got it mainly to carry with me when using the FE 70-200mm...

www.alphashooters.com

 

[spudhead]

I find it strange that so many people find the lens heavy and difficult to handhold, all my shots are handheld, I suppose I have always used big primes and all of those are heavier than the 200-600 and most of my shots are with steady shot off.

 

[iamdlewis]

The lens changes from 5.6 to 6.3 right at 400mm.

The camera recognition changes from 5.6 to 6.3. Aperture on variable lens will slide between the 2 largest openings as you move across the focal length. The reason it appears that it changes between 5.6 and 6.3 at some focal length is because that is were the round of the value equals the next value available in the camera.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I've had the 200-600 since shortly after release, and my big problem with it is weight - at 2.1kg, it's about double the weight of the 70-200 GM II. I can carry it for a few hours, but it's hard work (I'm getting on, and I'm no weightlifter like our good friend Spudhead )

It is a good lens, and I did not have the A7RIV problems that others did (apparently it's associated with a setting on the camera which I never changed). I like using it on the A1 and the A7RV, and I've experimented with both teleconverters - my 2x TC works fine, and the results are sharp - others have reported different results with the 2x.

I'd use it more if it was lighter. I'm looking into monopods - Jordan Drake recommended an iFootage Cobra 3, and I'll consider it (when it finally comes into stock here!).

 

[pointreyes]

The firmware 0.02 lens update for the A7Rv was nerve racking for me. My A1 was not working well whereas the A7Rv seemed to be the best camera for the lens. Thankfully, I found one place where several A1 owners noted that they had to reset the camera and so far that solved it for me. I mainly got the lens to replace the 100-400 GM and to gain more reach when possible. However, since I also have the OM-1 with the 40-150 f2.8 I'm less inclined to carry the 200-600 G unless I need the reach. The 40-150 with 2x TC gives me 160-600 f5.6 and with the 1.4x TC, I have 112-420 f4 at a weight about 100 grams less than the 70-200 GM II.

 

[RogerSmith]

Absolutely love the 200-600, its the reason I switched from Canon. Love it with the A9II, the A7RV pushes it a bit.

 

[Roland]

It was the 200-600mm that made me change from A to E mount Since I could use both cameras and zoom lenses side by side. what a difference.
Of course, there is a big difference to the 600mm prime but that also reflects in the price. For around $2000 price tag, I have no complaints.

 

[MeowZzz]

Haha, I am so undecided on this.

We ride scooters, and that is a big lens to put under the seat. Probably impracticable.

I ain't scared of the weight, but my missus will struggle a bit, and she'll wanna use it just as much as I would I imagine.

As to subjects, more likely dimmer weather, as in, we usually only have time to snap after work, so the faster the better really re. aperture.

As far as focal length goes, yeah longer the better some of the time, especially across the sea, but in the forest/jungle it is less important than the speed to focus in often dim illumination.
Feathered friends can be suddenly flying close by, so focus reaction is paramount. A9 likely faster than A7iv here

For the kites, usually anywhere from 50mm to 800mm I would guess will work. I can get real close to the bigger birds, or I know where to go so they'll fly right up close, or glide in enough proximity that even my 85 is enough.

Argh, what am I saying here? No eyed deer, as I love the price n reach of the G, but probably can only go the GM due to spatial constraints...

As an aside. I went out before lunch today as I could hear the kites squawking from the mountain above me at my computer. I really should hike up the 500 stairs and go look for their nest, except it is really tiring going up there as there are literally 30 minutes of stairs up up n more up. Anyways, I rode the scooter around the long way to get up to above where I live. Got the camera out and "oh yeah can't see a thing" through it due to the lens having fogged up.... Looks like I will have to put camera and lens out earlier to warm them up before use.

 

[liggy]

One of the main factors in my adding Sony to the kit was the 200-600. 98% I shoot it handheld. Useful to use the foot as a handle inverted and covered with silicone rubber for comfort.

My key learning was to up the shutter speed beyond what I initially thought would be needed for max sharpness. With the current NR software available - no problem.

Using with A9II and now A1. More useful with A1 because of the extra megapixels. I now pop back and forth to crop mode when needed and it's really handy.

 

[MeowZzz]

I got the 200-600 a couple of days after I got my A7Riii and promptly returned it after 2 days. It really was very unwieldy for me. I was spending way too much time worrying about holding it right, balancing etc. I didn’t find the IQ that much sharper than the Sigma 100-400 that I was using at that time.

Fast forward to January 2023 and I got the Sony 100400 GM, an absolutely fantastic lens and almost half the weight of the 200-600.

Two weeks back I got the 1.4 TC for it and I couldn’t be happier. Yes, I need to watch the light but so far it has not been a problem. I shoot either Aperture priority at 9.0 or Shutter Priority 1650.

So in conclusion the 200-600 wasn’t the right lens for me.

Hope this helps someone.

PS: I shoot handheld only.

Ah yes, the Sigma 100-400 --- we are using this at the moment, and well, the size and weight is fine, can't complain there. Of course there is a but here, so it does fine-ish in good light, but any backlighting or poor light and the IQ just plummets. Dramatically. Where I usually expect to pull detail or recover something from the shadows there is just a dark blob. I have not seen this before in any of my Sony lenses; whilst I may bodge an image with backlighting, I can still usually get some texture or details back from it. Indeed, this has been so good with the A7/A9 that I have evidentally taken it for granted as being some kind of norm!

 

[apb80]

One of the main factors in my adding Sony to the kit was the 200-600. 98% I shoot it handheld. Useful to use the foot as a handle inverted and covered with silicone rubber for comfort.

My key learning was to up the shutter speed beyond what I initially thought would be needed for max sharpness. With the current NR software available - no problem.

Using with A9II and now A1. More useful with A1 because of the extra megapixels. I now pop back and forth to crop mode when needed and it's really handy.

Curious what silicone rubber cover do you use on the foot?

 

[liggy]

Curious what silicone rubber cover do you use on the foot?

Generic amazon stuff. Nice on thumb grips and sax thumb hooks, iPad stand holder - all kinds of stuff. Just cut out a rough template and slapped it on. Doesn't interfere with the arca foot either. I replaced the OEM with an aftermarket arca foot.

Amazon.com

 

[Roland]

The 200-600 is heavy and I try to use it handheld every day. Builds up the right muscles. Of course the 70-200 is so much lighter but it does not work for birds in flight or a nice close up. I would like to have 600mm prime but money and weight stops me from buying it.

 

[MeowZzz]

The 200-600 is heavy and I try to use it handheld every day. Builds up the right muscles. Of course the 70-200 is so much lighter but it does not work for birds in flight or a nice close up. I would like to have 600mm prime but money and weight stops me from buying it.

The 70-200mm GM OSS ii isn't fast enough for flying feathers or fur for that matter? Looking at the motor specs you could easily think it could --- but hey, it's almost 2800 bucks to find out right!

 

[liggy]

The 70-200mm GM OSS ii isn't fast enough for flying feathers or fur for that matter? Looking at the motor specs you could easily think it could --- but hey, it's almost 2800 bucks to find out right!

70-200 II is blazing fast. Just not enough reach.

 

[spudhead]

The 70-200mm GM OSS ii isn't fast enough for flying feathers or fur for that matter? Looking at the motor specs you could easily think it could --- but hey, it's almost 2800 bucks to find out right!

I do not understand the statement that the 70-200mkii is not fast enough, it is f2.8 and the 200-600 is 5.6 -6.3 if I recall, the 70-200 is several stops faster and some 400 mm shorter on the long end

 

[MeowZzz]

I do not understand the statement that the 70-200mkii is not fast enough, it is f2.8 and the 200-600 is 5.6 -6.3 if I recall, the 70-200 is several stops faster and some 400 mm shorter on the long end

Nah nah, the confusion was about AF speed, all good now

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Without reading others replies, my thoughts are as follows.

I love it, by far the best designed and most sublime handling zoom lens I have ever used, and the main reason I switched to Sony to be honest.
I really don't think it has any faults in general, I have found it to be fast focussing, and very sharp, especially in good light. I was interested in your comment about it struggling at range. I have no such issues at all, it's often more accurate at range than it is close by.
If I wanted to change anything it would be to ditch the multiple OSS settings, because mode 1 is fine for everything and there are no benefits to the other 2 in my experience and to have the ability to turn the OSS via the camera settings instead of the switch, or, move that switch to within a finger reach from the camera, but that is a personal preference for wanting to change it quickly. I would also like the lens foot to fit a bit more tightly, mine wobbles a little bit, and maybe have it Arca Swiss fitting, not that I use a Tripod, but it's a bad omission.
Other than that, nothing to change, I'm amazed other manufacturers haven't copied the design.

 

[dragonsdreams]

The 200 - 600mm is permanently on my A1 - usually with a 1.4x as I shoot wildlife 99% of the time.
I bought a 100- 400mm GM before the larger lens and it's usually gathering dust, I find it to be clumsy and clunky compared to the 200- 600mm. The internal zoom of the 200 - 600mm is a pleasure to use after the heavy zoom on the 100 - 400mm GM. Yes it's heavy for any length of time but the reach is fantastic.
I replaced the foot with a Kirk one, a nicer long foot for carrying and has an arca fixing.

 

[spudhead]

The 200 - 600mm is permanently on my A1 - usually with a 1.4x as I shoot wildlife 99% of the time.
I bought a 100- 400mm GM before the larger lens and it's usually gathering dust, I find it to be clumsy and clunky compared to the 200- 600mm. The internal zoom of the 200 - 600mm is a pleasure to use after the heavy zoom on the 100 - 400mm GM. Yes it's heavy for any length of time but the reach is fantastic.
I replaced the foot with a Kirk one, a nicer long foot for carrying and has an arca fixing.

Well the 200-600 is nicer to use than the 100-400, but to be honest the 200-600 is not heavy really and I guess that having come from a back ground of long primes the 200-600 is a joy to use for me

 

[spudhead]

I find it interesting that some are finding the 100-400 clumsy and clunky over the 200-600.

I believe the for the 400, the length at max zoom is 11.2” and for the 600 the length is constant at 12.49”.

Similarly the the weight for the 400 3.1 lbs and that 600 is 4.65 lbs.


I would have and did have a heck of a time carrying or transporting a constant 12.49” zoom, let alone the fact the 600 is 1.55 lbs heavier which is roughly 50% heavier.

Just my 2 cents.

You have a valid point for sure and each to their own, I like both lenses and obviously the 100-400 works for you for the reasons you state, I was glad to see you bought it

 

[GracieAllen]

I often shoot the larger birds at 200-300 metres away and even further on a 24 megapixel camera but note some people say they do not get decent results at that range, so please post up your likes, dislikes, issues, and thoughts on the lens in real life use, please reference camera bodies you use it on so members can see thanks people in advance

I don't know when it was released but I've been shooting the 200-600 on the Alpha 1 since a year ago. It's a very good lens, and the combination with the body is about the same weight as the Nikon D850 with Tamron 150-600 G2.

I shoot it on a monopod most of the time, and the images are consistently sharper than anything I got with any of the tele-zooms on the Nikons.

I shoot it with the 1.4X as needed. There is visible degradation, but it's correctable in post. I tried it with a 2X one time and found the degradation objectionable. All that said, I'm one of the people, even when shot on a VERY sturdy and stable tripod, at shutter speeds of 1/2500 or higher, subjects at very long distances are generally not sharp. Doesn't matter if tracking, using spot focus or whatever. I'm not sure what distance that is, since I've been told there's no way to get an accurate distance to subject for the camera

 

[GracieAllen]

So how do I see an accurate distance to the subject in the image metadata?

 

[GracieAllen]

Good grief... Yes, that was the intent - since I'm using a camera to capture an image of something a distance away, I want the metadata in the image to tell me how far the subject was, or at LEAST accurately tell me where the camera decided to focus.

 

[Gaz]

I understand photograph a bird, heavily crop and you will not see sharpness. No news there so I don’t know why a different result is anticipated.

The moon is a long way off and with 600mm and 1.4 TC it nearly fills the frame with crunchy craters (atmospheric conditions may vary).

We expect too much. No doubt inbuilt AI will soon placate our concerns

 

[GracieAllen]

I often shoot the larger birds at 200-300 metres away and even further on a 24 megapixel camera but note some people say they do not get decent results at that range, so please post up your likes, dislikes, issues, and thoughts on the lens in real life use, please reference camera bodies you use it on so members can see thanks people in advance

The OP talked about distances of 200 - 300 meters and implied they got sharp results "some people say they do not get decent results at that range". In my reply I indicated I do NOT get sharp results at long distances, but DON'T KNOW the precise distances - whether 200 meters or closer. Which was when the "legendary member" followed with:

I'm not sure what distance that is, since I've been told there's no way to get an accurate distance to subject for the camera

Whoever told you that is a moron.

And THAT would be why it matters... What I'd HOPE TO GAIN is a better understanding of the range at which the camera/lens combination STOPS being effective.