Sony 200-600 - is my sharpness normal?

[krisljungberg]

The eternal question. Is the lens sharp? Is it normal?

Today I tried my new Sony 200-600 paired with the Sony A7 III for the first time. Here's some photos I took today and I think they look soft. What do you guys think? Everything OK? They are converted from RAW to JPEG in Lightroom with standard sharpness applied by default (amount: 40).

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 320

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 320

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 500

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 500

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 500

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 500

 

[Blake81]

Are you shooting handheld?

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I'd say that there are 2 things at play to stop the sharpness, shutter speed maybe, but more likely atmospheric conditions at the range you are shooting combined with the high resolution sensor will show it more. It's the one thing I notice most since buying the A7R4.

 

[DavidN]

Have you got a UV/protection filter on the lens? That can soften the image.
i assume that the last one of the Oystercatcher is a heavy crop of the one before - that could be the problem for that one.
i don’t use Lightroom so don’t know the sharpening effectiveness. Maybe try Topaz Sharpen AI as an alternative.

 

[krisljungberg]

Have you got a UV/protection filter on the lens? That can soften the image.
i assume that the last one of the Oystercatcher is a heavy crop of the one before - that could be the problem for that one.
i don’t use Lightroom so don’t know the sharpening effectiveness. Maybe try Topaz Sharpen AI as an alternative.

The first photo is the original, the smaller photos are 100% crop on the face of the birds just to show the softness. Obviously, no one will ever see the photo in 100% crop but still...

 

[krisljungberg]

I had to go out and try again. This is not an accurate representation of real worl birding, since these piegons are pretty chill. Very close up but at least it's sharp (to my eye anyway) and what I expect.

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 800

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 800

 

[krisljungberg]

This guy was 12-13 meters away. Acceptable sharpness or bad? I feel so insecure all of a sudden. Jesus.

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 500

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 500

 

[pmenear]

I have found the 200-600 to have acceptable sharpness with targets up to 8 meters away, if I expect to be shooting beyond this distance or with a teleconverter I use the 600 f4 GM. The 200-600 is very good value but it has limits which I'm happy to accept at this price.

 

[spudhead]

Hi I used the a7iii for a couple of years with the 200-600 and it took a little getting dialed in I would try to push shutter speeds up and iso if handheld, I can assure you you can make this work well, I will attempt to add some similar bird shots if I can find some but I will add a couple of shots that are big edited crops just to reassure you this kit will work first shot is 4.3 mb file second 1.3 mb from 24 meg

• ILCE-7M3
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 500

• ILCE-7M3
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 500

 

[Paul stuart]

you really do not have to take wildlife images to check sharpness ,you could photograph anything your pet would be good or a checker chart in a controlled condition base iso and no atmospherics with electronic shutter with tripod / fixed lens and camera ,this would eliminate your fears ,or prove your judgement correct.

 

[spudhead]

you really do not have to take wildlife images to check sharpness ,you could photograph anything your pet would be good or a checker chart in a controlled condition base iso and no atmospherics with electronic shutter with tripod / fixed lens and camera ,this would eliminate your fears ,or prove your judgement correct.

Hi I did not post the shots for that reason I simply wanted to reassure him his setup would work when he gets it dialed in, its just I shoot wildlife if I had shots of birds I would have posted them the above are 2020 shots , the electronic shutter is not great on the a7iii its well noted that it suffers from shutter roll, and I still have and use the a7iii as its worth more to me than trade in, the guy is trying to make the 200-600 work on the a7iii in the real world, so testing a fixed lens just proves the camera is sharp not the combo, just my thoughts having used the above combo for 3 years plus and I am no expert so please disregard if irrelevant and I do not wish to offend anyone

 

[i12flytoday]

Based on the pigeon shot, the lens is fine as far as anything I've ever seen at 600mm in those conditions. I have an amazing shot of a Blue Heron landing, but at 600mm, the atmospheric haze makes it look somewhat bright or over exposed. Atmospheric haze has been a major PITA at these focal lengths for me.

With the gull, I think I would have gone a bit less on the exposure. I feel like your whites are overexposed, giving the illusion of softness. If you look at the gray feathers you can see a lot of detail in the 100% crop, but the white feathers are just one big white blob. Coming from a Nikon, which had similar issues with exposure, I have started shooting everything 1 click down on the exposure. This never causes me to not be able to bring it back up if needed, but it does keep me from losing detail in whites.

Just my opinion, and I'm no sought after expert.

 

[krisljungberg]

Thanks for your input guys! Will try to get some more testing in today if the weather allows it. Supposed to be raining though so we'll see.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Thanks for your input guys! Will try to get some more testing in today if the weather allows it. Supposed to be raining though so we'll see.

The Hare shot shows the atmospherics I mentioned well, with some nervous bokeh due to the background foliage. You also need to have better light to really show the sharpness.
Interesting comment from Peter about the lens being good up to 8m. I find it better at distance overall.

 

[krisljungberg]

Here's some taken this morning. Bumped up the shutter speed to 1/2000s and auto iso up to 3200. Normal shooting conditions generally. I have no idea what to think.

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 2000

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 2000

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 3200

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 3200

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 2500

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 2500

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 3200

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 3200

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1250

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1250

 

[krisljungberg]

And a few more.

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 2500

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 2500

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1000

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1000

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1250

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1250

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1600

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1600

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 800

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 800

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1250

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1250

Original photo:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 500

100% crop:

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 500

 

[krisljungberg]

Went out again just to try 1/1000s but F/8 instead. I mean, I guess they are sharp? I seriously can't tell. I think I expected some insane standards but when it comes down to it, it's probably just as sharp as my previous Nikon 200-500. Here's Original + 100% crop versions.

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 320

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 320

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 160

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 160

 

[spudhead]

Your results seem to be all over the place, and pretty much the only thing changing is ISO. Atmosphere and technique.


Agreed. The day I need a $12k lens to shoot beyond 26 feet is the day I quit. Moreover, there are plenty of examples on this forum and elsewhere on the web that prove differently. On the other hand the $12k lens sure as heck should be better. If it weren't I suspect the people who laid out the purchase price would be rather pissed.

you are so right the shots I added were for help purposes and from 2020 with the same rig and I was having issues then my self but the tiger his 100
plus feet away and yes birds are smaller etc and more difficult, but you are right lots of people make this kit work and work well

 

[spudhead]

Tell us about the camera is it brand new? what software version is it running, if not current version up date if you can I had issues with the 200-600 when it came out on the a7iii and sony brought updates out that seemed to transform the combo

 

[krisljungberg]

Looks ok to me.

A question: Maybe I missed this above, but are these SOOC jpegs, processed jpegs, or RAW?

Everything I've posted so far are RAW, converted to jpeg with Lightroom default settings applied (40 sharpening), but nothing else is done. I almost never add extra sharpening or do noise reduction or anything to my photos. If it isn't sharp from the beginning, there's just no point. And I try to keep the ISO levels pretty low because I just feel like the noise reduction process makes all the photos look more like paintings than photos. ;P

 

[krisljungberg]

Tell us about the camera is it brand new? what software version is it running, if not current version up date if you can I had issues with the 200-600 when it came out on the a7iii and sony brought updates out that seemed to transform the combo

The camera is brand new and so is the lens! I updated the camera to the latest firmware a few days ago.

 

[krisljungberg]

Here's some photos I like that I've edited the way I usually edit my photos and post online. All taken yesterday and today with Sony A7 III + Sony 200-600. I guess they look nice enough? Maybe not the most exotic birds but that's a different story.

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 125

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 500

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 320

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 640

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1000

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 800

 

[DavidN]

I reiterate my previous comment, if you think you could get your blow ups a bit sharper, try Topaz Sharpen AI - you can download a trial version for free. It may seem like a cheat but it’s the result that counts.

 

[spudhead]

The camera is brand new and so is the lens! I updated the camera to the latest firmware a few days ago.

I took these late this afternoon with the a7iii and 200-600 look at the iso its really high on some due to low light

• ILCE-7M3
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1000

• ILCE-7M3
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1000

• ILCE-7M3
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 8000

• ILCE-7M3
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 8000

I feel the whole setup is wrong because the a7iii handle noise quite well see images yes I have edited and denoised Gary

 

[krisljungberg]

I reiterate my previous comment, if you think you could get your blow ups a bit sharper, try Topaz Sharpen AI - you can download a trial version for free. It may seem like a cheat but it’s the result that counts.

But I don't want to spend 2000 USD on a lens if it's not as sharp as it should be, and then have to spend more money on software to make it look better? If my results are not normal, I rather try to get a replacement.

 

[krisljungberg]

I took these late this afternoon with the a7iii and 200-600 look at the iso its really high on some due to low lightView attachment 18863View attachment 18864View attachment 18865View attachment 18866 I feel the whole setup is wrong because the a7iii handle noise quite well see images yes I have edited and denoised Gary

Looks like you had good light too! I can't wait for a nice, sunny day. Been pretty so-so at best since I got the camera unfortunately.

 

[spudhead]

Looks like you had good light too! I can't wait for a nice, sunny day. Been pretty so-so at best since I got the camera unfortunately.

not really I have other shots and stayed out till twilight on purpose, the a7iii is really a great camera it takes some learning and you can manipulate poor light. The robin shot was shot at 8000 iso so not good light at all. It all about setting up the camera from start to finish. the internet has loads of info to help why not share your set up and we can help point you in the right direction

 

[krisljungberg]

not really I have other shots and stayed out till twilight on purpose, the a7iii is really a great camera it takes some learning and you can manipulate poor light. The robin shot was shot at 8000 iso so not good light at all. It all about setting up the camera from start to finish. the internet has loads of info to help why not share your set up and we can help point you in the right direction

Ah, the first photo looked so bright I thought it was a nicely lit day.

Any particular settings you would recommend?

 

[krisljungberg]

Ok, got some new examples here, taken just a little while ago. I think these are good enough. 600mm, 1/1250s, F/6.3, AUTO ISO 100-1250 and Zone AF on all photos.

First original, then 100% crop under. What do you guys say?

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 200

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 200

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 1250

 

[krisljungberg]

Back to square one. Was out today, weather was nice but a bit windy by the water. Couldn't get a proper sharp image to save my life. I don't know what's wrong. So depressing.

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 500

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 500

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-7M3
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 1250