News Sony FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS & FE 16mm F1.8 G Lenses Announced

[Tim Mayo]

So we have two new lenses from Sony today, the FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS and the Sony FE 16mm F1.8 G.

The FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS will cost $2,898.00 in the US or £2,549.00 in the UK. The FE 16mm F1.8 G is priced at a more affordable $798.00 or £849.00 in the UK. Both lenses should be available in March.

Is anyone here tempted? I wouldn't mind trying out the 400-800 at some point but it's not a lens that I feel I really need right now.

Steve Perry's review of the 400-800 is worth watching if you would like to learn more about this lens:

And here's Sony's promo video:

Or if the 16mm appeals more then Gordon Laing's review is worth a watch:

And here's Sony's promo video:

 

[iamdlewis]

I would also say that Jan Wegener's review of the 400-800

Jan basically approves of the lens for use in areas outside of forest areas and prefers it over the 200-600. Seems the rumors of it not being sharp were false.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

If I were an A7C-II owner, I'd be tempted by the 16mm. Its like me: Cheap, Compromised and occasionally Sharp

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Another review of the 16mm:

Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 G Review: Worthwhile Compromises for Compactness

A very impressive ultra-wide prime lens for hybrid creators.

petapixel.com

 

[Paul stuart]

Nice lens ,i am on pre order already do i still keep the 200-600mm ,still going to keep my 500mm f5.6 sigma the sigma 300-600mm f4 is the king lens but can i shoot with 4kg probably but i am not getting younger although try to work out as much as possible ,but then a few years with the 200-600 i can feel rotator cuff occasionaly .the 16mm looks great also but my viltrox is no slouch but quite bulky heavy .

 

[AlphaWorld]

I would also say that Jan Wegener's review of the 400-800

Jan basically approves of the lens for use in areas outside of forest areas and prefers it over the 200-600. Seems the rumors of it not being sharp were false.

Dang! (as our US friends might say...)

He makes the 400-800 sound really good. Really really good!

I will have to try holding it to see how I feel. I might consider replacing the 200-600 with the 400-800 - I only want one heavy lens, and I like the idea of the extra length.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Mark Galer's review points out that the 200-600 + 1.4x to 400-600 is a smaller difference than you might think once you factor in the weight and length on the teleconverter. Difference is only 6% and 3% - that's much smaller than I thought.

I should stop looking at the reviews!

 

[iamdlewis]

Mark Galer's review points out that the 200-600 + 1.4x to 400-600 is a smaller difference than you might think once you factor in the weight and length on the teleconverter. Difference is only 6% and 3% - that's much smaller than I thought.

I should stop looking at the reviews!

1. I should probably stop checking the reviews too.
2. Jan, Duade Paton and Steve Perry are saying that the 400-800 is very noticeably sharper than the 200-600+1.4x plus you are at F9 vs F8.

I have plenty of places that I would very much like to have that 800mm reach. I still have the A1ii coming and not sure that I have another 3k in the budget for camera gear this year.

 

[Killtimer]

It's going to be interesting to see if there's a large number of 200-600's hitting the used market in the near future.

 

[Richard A]

There have already been a few on eBay here recently.

 

[AlphaWorld]

1. I should probably stop checking the reviews too.
2. Jan, Duade Paton and Steve Perry are saying that the 400-800 is very noticeably sharper than the 200-600+1.4x plus you are at F9 vs F8.

I have plenty of places that I would very much like to have that 800mm reach. I still have the A1ii coming and not sure that I have another 3k in the budget for camera gear this year.

There are examples Jan showed where the 400-800 is visibly sharper at f/8 than the 200-600 at f/8 even without the TC. It’s starting to look like a really impressive lens, dammit!

I just wanna watch Gordon Laing’s review… then I’ll stop. Maybe.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I looked it up on my local dealer’s site, and the price is not appalling.

The thing I came here to mention was the photos of the lens that they have on their site - there are the usual side-on, angled, etc, then several with cameras attached. If you squint you can tell the the first one is an A1ii, then an A7RV, then and A9III, and then an A7C model - might be the A7CR.

Funnily, there are two shots of a photographer at the end, I think with the new 16mm - it’s tiny compared to the 400-800 beast.

 

[alexpler]

That 16mm 1.8 seemed promising for astro and architecture but the reviews are underwhelming to say the least. Too many compromises apparently. Maybe they should have aimed for a less compact or a 16 2.X lens that was sharper and had better corner performance and bokeh.

 

[Clide]

I am going to purchase the 400-800mm and sell my 200-600mm. Weight and length not significantly different then the 200-600mm. We have some nice trips coming up that would call for that extra reach.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I think I might haul the 200-600 out over the weekend and try using it on birds again (I have been leaving it home because of the weight), but I feel I need to either confirm my problem with the weight, or that I could handle the 400-800.

It was much easier when I could simply say “too heavy”…

 

[AlphaWorld]

I think I might haul the 200-600 out over the weekend and try using it on birds again (I have been leaving it home because of the weight), but I feel I need to either confirm my problem with the weight, or that I could handle the 400-800.

It was much easier when I could simply say “too heavy”…

Well, the lens is still heavy, but I can carry it and use it handheld. I'm also investigating monopods and monopod heads.

I honestly don't know if I've used this combination before - I got the 300 GM at the same time as the A9 III, and I was somewhat obsessed with it

So this is the 200-600mm G at 291mm f/5.6 (wide open) on the A9 III at 1/500, ISO 640, shooting into a shaded spot occupied by a medium sized Gippsland Water Dragon. The image is cropped from 6000x4000 down to 2000x1399 (so it uploads at 100% on this site).

I'd say my copy of the 200-600 is pretty sharp judging by this shot And the 400-800 is reputed to be sharper - oh, dear, could I cope?

Dangnabbit! I think this weekend is going to cost me a chunk of money.

Before anyone points out that the 400-800 doesn't go down to 291mm, allow me to remind you that this is a crop of 1/3 of the frame - so 800mm would make the lizard roughly fill the frame - I'd HATE that (not!!).

 

[spudhead]

I will pick a 400-800 for the good light days , it would be rude not to try it really as the 200-600 was a great bang for the cost for most Sony wildlife shooters

 

[AlphaWorld]

After using the 200-600 on both Saturday and Sunday I got some muscle soreness in my shoulders, but I think I’ve convinced myself.

Traded in my 200-600 today, and put the trade-in down as deposit on a 400-800, like Clide did last week.

Sony’s website is saying first shipment goes out on the 16th March. That’s not a long wait (I guess they were building up stock while waiting for the big event to announce it). I just hope I got into the first allocation. Quite looking forward to it.