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

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
duncang Regular Member • Posts: 470
Re: Sony Alpha 1, SEL 200-600 or Canon R5, RF 100-500

nandbytes wrote:

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).

No question for birds further away the 200-600 is way better of course. But for small fast erratic birds getting closer with a light fast lens delivers much better results for me. I would far prefer to use the 100-400 even with the TC1.4 over the 200-600 whenever reach and light is not a problem. I just don't see the same kind of clarity from the 200-600 as these examples from the 100-400 show. As you can see reach was not a problem.

Perhaps it is just my imagination but even horribly backlit images come out exceptionally well with none of the edge haziness and fringing I typically see with the 200-600.

The secret to reach is here - much cheaper and lighter than a prime !

When push comes to shove in the right light conditions the 200-600 is certainly no slouch. And purely from a sharpness point of view it certainly doesn't get left behind by either the 100-500 or the 100-400. If anything I would say it is a bit sharper than the 100-500 but that didn't translate into the sharpest BIF images - which consistently seem to come from the 100-500 or 100-400 for me.

For stills I think it beats the 100-500 and definitely so with the TC1.4 on it.

All this is splitting hairs - you should be able to get great images with any of these.

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