Sony Alpha 1, SEL 200-600 or Canon R5, RF 100-500

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
nandbytes Veteran Member • Posts: 6,220
Re: Sony Alpha 1, SEL 200-600 or Canon R5, RF 100-500

duncang wrote:

nandbytes wrote:

duncang wrote:

I would like to see 200-600 images showing this amount of detail and sharpness. In fact would like to see images from any camera/lens combo that can match this.

And both the FE100-400GM and the 100-500L have a clarity about them that the 200-600 just seem to lack - I guess that's what comes with being a 'budget' lens.

200-600mm isn't a unsharp "budget" lens as you put it. Its perfectly capable of producing equally sharp results. Having had both 100-400mm and 200-600mm, 100-400mm mostly has an advantage in the corners and may be slight advantage mid frame but in no way is 200-600mm a slouch you seem to think it is.

crop from A7RIV of a small bird with 200-600mm

I never said it wasn't sharp or a slouch - it is plenty sharp alright - but it does lack a bit of the contrast and clarity the GM and L series lenses seem to have. And the "budget" comment was just a quote from someone on the forum who was complaining about comparing what was apparently a "budget" Sony lens with the 100-500 L Series lens. $2200 hardly seem "budget" to me but then it is quite a bit cheaper than the 100-500L Series here in AU. No longer so for the 100-400GM which can be found for $2800 now.

In any event my comment above was not a general comment about the sharpness of the 200-600 - it was about getting sharp detailed images of flying swallows with the 200-600 where the extra weight means it is much harder to track swallows. And if you are shooting at 400mm then f5.6 means you can shoot with a faster shutter speed to minimise the motion blur at the same or lower iso that with the 200-600 with the resultant lower noise and cleaner final images.

fair enough, my bad looks like I misread your comments.

I shoot flying birds too with 200-600mm but admittedly not shot swallows with it yet. I have shot Arctic Puffins if that counts?

Weight doesn't bother me as much since I am used to it now. The main thing I miss about the 100-400mm is the higher 0.31x magnification (or close to 0.5x magnification with 1.4x TC).

-- hide signature --

Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 nandbytes's gear list:nandbytes's gear list
Sony a7C Sony a1 Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Sony FE 20mm F1.8G Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow