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]

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:



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.

I dont want to be unhelpful but is it possible that you have actually bought the flagship camera as you call it and a half decent zoom lens and assumed that the combination would make up for bad technique or lack of understanding, it is fact is very likely you are the weak link and the kit is getting the blame, you never post images and we dont care if they are good or bad but no one on here can help if indeed that is what you want? I actually think you are calling us out on our results so let me point out it is you that is unhappy, plenty of people have your combo and seem to make it work, the question on camera to subject distance may in fact not be an issue as you say you have no idea on that, well one metre is approximately 39.5 inches so 3.3 feet roughly in American, and 200 metres is roughly 659 feet, this I do all day long for my job and can switch between the two in my sleep I believe an American football pitch is about 360 feet but I could be wrong, this at least might help you

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

To add my two penneth to what my esteemed forum colleagues have said above. If you want perfect clear shots at range there are a hundred factors that come into play, but the biggest 2 are motion and atmospherics. It is possible, but it's rare. I've done it at roughly 200 yards, on a big bird. I'm quite sure if you were shooting a building at that range you'd have more chance, but there would need to be literally no movement and no haze, almost impossible to achieve.
Quite why you find it such a big thing is beyond me though. There is no substitute for good field craft to get you closer to a subject (in wildlife shooting), so go and learn some of that maybe?

 

[MeowZzz]

So.... back on topic:

Took a shot last night on my way home from a place I often take shots so as to check sharpness out --- infinity & night time, pushing it a bit I suppose, but I was curious (my 105mm macro looks awful here). I suppose it doesn't really mean much, but have a look anyways.

• ILCE-7M4
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/100 sec
• ISO 6400

And a 50mm to get a better idea of the distance

• NIKON D700
• 50.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 200

And with an 85mm

• ILCE-9M2
• Sony FE 85mm F1.8 (SEL85F18)
• 85.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/50 sec
• ISO 640

 

[Paul stuart]

well no one has come up with anything better for the price ok nikon has a 180-600mm ,but it is softer in sharpness although you gain 20mm wide end ,although there is room for improvement ,a closer focusing would be nice ,a focus limiter that does not start at 10m to infinity ,maybe quad linear focus motors for faster auto focus ,still you need prime money to get improvement and that generally means a less versitile lens for weight and restricted f/l

 

[andrewluke]

If you mean the Nikon 180-600 z lens, it isn’t available yet, so how can you tell it is softer in sharpness?

quite a few on youtube have had a play with it for about a month

 

[spudhead]

quite a few on youtube have had a play with it for about a month

quite a few on youtube have had a play with it for about a month

And what did people say about it Andrew?

 

[andrewluke]

And what did people say about it Andrew?

search youtube for " nikon 180-600mm "

 

[spudhead]

I did search but no none seems to have a final version of the lens and most say that right away.

We have one on pre order and will hopefully get it soon and can judge for ourselves.

Sorry if I derailed this thread.

No we need to know what is out there and what is coming

 

[MeowZzz]

I too put a lot of emphasis on the DXO Sports rating, which would deffo be something I looked at before buying a camera

 

[AlphaWorld]

I love it! I hope you guys never hang wallpaper together!

You remind me of a short silent film I saw once where two people were hanging wallpaper - they started on opposite walls and hung different colours - then noticed what each other were doing... It was funny. Final shot of the room showed two opposing walls hung with different colours and the two walls between papered in stripes.

 

[rae1063]

I really like my 200-600, but its weight is something I've had to mess with on my hikes. My last outing before my 2nd knee surgery I mounted it on a monopod and walked with that which was just awkward, cumbersome and something I'll never do again. Next time out I'll have it on my side attached w a shoulder strap and see how that works.
I also have the Cotton Carrier chest harness that works very well, but, at least for me, the lens works better without the lens hood which adds length.
All that said, the 200-600 has a weight distribution also that can make it tough to carry.

 

[Landshark99]

I bought it when it was introduced but honestly I rarely take it out of the case. I thought I would be doing more wildlife stuff then I am.

 

[MeowZzz]

We swap back and forth so we get a break with the 100-400mm a while

 

[Clix Pix]

For some reason I thought I had posted in this thread but apparently not....

When I made the switch to Sony and was starting from scratch, I considered what lenses I wanted from the first day and then had a list of eventual purchases to come later. I lasted all of a month before running back to the store to buy the 200-600mm as I have opportunities to shoot water birds on our small lake and for a while had thought I could just use my RX10 IV for that. Quickly changed my mind -- the RX10 IV is fine for some things but the image quality vs the 200-600 is quite noticeable and was happy that I had bought the 200-600mm. However, yes, the weight and sheer length/size of it was a bit daunting and when nicer weather came and I knew I'd want to be out walking around the lake, it was readily apparent that the 200-600mm wasn't going to be the lens of choice. It really does best on a tripod.

Enter the 100-400mm, which quickly became my number two favorite lens (the first being the 90mm macro), and that is the lens I most frequently choose when going out on walks (although now I sometimes take the 70-200 instead). It's all worked out well, although I don't use the 200-600mm as often as I had initially envisioned when I purchased it. For the money, though, it is an outstanding lens.

 

[Landshark99]

I just found one of the few images I have shot with this lens

• ILCE-7RM3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 250