What do you think could/should be done if Sony update the 200-600 lens?

I don't own this lens but keep toying with the idea of it. That is because it would get relatively limited use.

Given the updates to lenses that have been happening e.g. 700-200 f2.8, and just recently the 16-35 f4, what do you think Sony might do if the 200-600 lens got updated?

I'm no expert on the technicalities of lenses but wondered whether it might get lighter: be equipped with linear motors (though reviews suggest it focuses pretty fast already); and maybe reduce the minumum focusing distance?

Given current technological developments what do you think Sony could do whilst keeping the lens reasonably affordable?

I wonder what current owners of the lens would like to see?

21tones said:

I don't own this lens but keep toying with the idea of it. That is because it would get relatively limited use.

Given the updates to lenses that have been happening e.g. 700-200 f2.8, and just recently the 16-35 f4, what do you think Sony might do if the 200-600 lens got updated?

I'm no expert on the technicalities of lenses but wondered whether it might get lighter: be equipped with linear motors (though reviews suggest it focuses pretty fast already); and maybe reduce the minumum focusing distance?

Given current technological developments what do you think Sony could do whilst keeping the lens reasonably affordable?

I wonder what current owners of the lens would like to see?

Click to expand...

The lens is wonderful just as it is. Of course lighter and faster focusing are always better, but that would come at a cost.

Perhaps a 150-600 GM version with four linear motors for $1,000 more? I would jump at that if the weight could be about the same. I sometimes have to shoot the 100-400GM because I need just a touch more on the wide end than 200mm. Of course Sigma already makes a nice 150-600.

I wish the rotating mount collar (or whatever it's called) was smoother. Otherwise, I've been very happy with this lens, and I've owned it since the day it was released.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this one.

Sony is only replacing older lenses that had problems. The 70-200mm f/2.8 had issues (particularly with the aluminium plate in the middle of the lens), and Sony managed to make some really good changes in addition - lower weight was a big one. I don't know what the issues with the 16-35 were (but I suspect others will comment).

The 200-600 is a popular lens - I have one, and it works well. I'd be grateful if it were lighter, but making a 200-600mm lens with a decent maximum aperture means using some larger elements, and glass is heavy!

Most everyone, including myself, seems to be happy with this lens. It also keeps pace performance-wise with the competition, so there isn't a lot of incentive for Sony to upgrade, even though it does not have the four linear focus motors that the newer lenses of this type have.

I assume that Sony would prefer to apply their resources to 'fill the competitive gaps' with lenses such as a GM 300mm f2.8, 100/105mm f1.4, GM 200mm f2, 85mm f1.2, tilt-shift, etc.

--
Jeff
Florida, USA
http://www.gr8photography.com

The 200-600 is one of the newest lenses in the lineup. I cannot imagine any technological or material changes that would radically improve its performance enough to justify the change. A lens has to be in production for many years to recoup the R&D investments. The 200-600 seems to be quite popular so I don't see any motivation for Sony to change it.

Sony made choices regarding glass and other internals that apparently put it in the "G" rather than the "GM" category. I use both the 100-400 GM and the 200-600 G. For me they have different uses. The 100-400 is my primary sports lens. I carry a 1.4x TC but rarely attach it. The 200-600 is my wildlife lens.

If the 200-600 was perhaps f4.5-5.6 and contained more "GM" level glass it would probably cost two or three times what the current version does. That would be a really sweet lens. But it would also be less accessible to the current users of the "G" version. You have to jump all the way to the stratospheric 600 f4 GM to get better performance today. It might make market sense for Sony to offer something in between. Personally, I'd rather see a 500mm f/4-ish prime in the $5000 range. That could be a reasonable step up from the 200-600 without needing to sell multiple body parts to afford the 600 f4.

The only thing I dislike about the 200-600 is the tripod foot mounting system which it shares with the 70-200 and 100-400. I understand the design as it makes the foot quickly and easily removable. That makes sense on the smaller, lighter lenses. Those are easily handheld. If you always hand hold the 200-600 I suppose it's a nice feature. However, I normally use at least a monopod with it. The foot also makes a nice carry handle. I would not use it without a foot attached.

The 200-600 is in a different size and weight class compared to the 70-200 and 100-400. It really should have a more solid bolt-on foot like the 400mm and 600mm primes. I replaced my 200-600 foot with an aftermarket Hejnar dovetail. The Hejnar foot uses an attachment bolt and a set screw so it is a more solid attachment than the OEM foot. But I'd still prefer a totally stable 4 bolt design like most super tele primes use.

I have this lens and although I think it's a good value, I'd like to see Sony develop a smaller and lighter 500mm f5 or F5.6 prime similar to the Nikon 500mm f5.6 fresnel lens that can be more easily hand held and carried through the brush and over the mountains with much more ease. I think the bouquet could be better without the compromises necessary for a zoom.

Gary

gary payne said:

I have this lens and although I think it's a good value, I'd like to see Sony develop a smaller and lighter 500mm f5 or F5.6 prime similar to the Nikon 500mm f5.6 fresnel lens that can be more easily hand held and carried through the brush and over the mountains with much more ease. I think the bouquet could be better without the compromises necessary for a zoom.

Gary

Click to expand...

Maybe even the bokeh will be better, too.

;-)

I'd accept both.

A GM version as a pro zoom to fill the gap between the 200-600G and the 600 f4 GM prime. Faster AF motors, lower min focus distance, better ergonomics e.g controls near the lens balance point etc and any improvements to optics would be a bonus.

Or a G rated 500 f5 prime to fill the same gap in a different way.

I'd like a collapsible version, as the only reason I haven't bought one yet is that it will take up too much space in my bag... Something that folds down to the same length as the 100-400 would be good.

Yes, I know it's a tradeoff, but if they put decent filters on the vents hopefully it won't suck up too much dust.

Yes, I know I could buy a bigger bag, but when travelling I don't want to risk it ending up as hold luggage...

Kev The Doc said:

A GM version as a pro zoom to fill the gap between the 200-600G and the 600 f4 GM prime. Faster AF motors, lower min focus distance, better ergonomics e.g controls near the lens balance point etc and any improvements to optics would be a bonus.

Or a G rated 500 f5 prime to fill the same gap in a different way.

Click to expand...

So tempted to suggest a PG13 rated version for shooting sport…

Lan said:

I'd like a collapsible version, as the only reason I haven't bought one yet is that it will take up too much space in my bag... Something that folds down to the same length as the 100-400 would be good.

Yes, I know it's a tradeoff, but if they put decent filters on the vents hopefully it won't suck up too much dust.

Yes, I know I could buy a bigger bag, but when travelling I don't want to risk it ending up as hold luggage...

Click to expand...

I specifically use the Sony because it is internal zoom. Same with the 70-200. I think Canon (and Tamron's) designs are innovative. But in use the external zoom action is too sticking and the throw is too long compared to the internal models. And the size difference really is not that significant. Sony proved an internal zoom lens like the 70-200 can be as lightweight as an external one like the Canon. No matter how good the venting it is still sucking air in and out constantly. That equals dust. Period.

I prioritize how well a lens works when taking photos and not how easily it stores in my luggage. The Sigma 150-600 is a good option for anyone who wants to go the external zoom route. But it is only 16% shorter and virtually the same weight.

21tones said:

I don't own this lens but keep toying with the idea of it. That is because it would get relatively limited use.

Given the updates to lenses that have been happening e.g. 700-200 f2.8, and just recently the 16-35 f4, what do you think Sony might do if the 200-600 lens got updated?

I'm no expert on the technicalities of lenses but wondered whether it might get lighter: be equipped with linear motors (though reviews suggest it focuses pretty fast already); and maybe reduce the minumum focusing distance?

Given current technological developments what do you think Sony could do whilst keeping the lens reasonably affordable?

I wonder what current owners of the lens would like to see?

Click to expand...

As most others have said - this is a new lens that performs exceptionally well, at its price point but also overall. It will be upgraded, but probably not in the next 3 years. When it is, I would expect smaller and lighter, faster AF, perhaps faster aperture by then, but who knows. Its a lens that most other platform shooters wish they had.

I am hoping the 100-400 gets upgraded to a 100-500 next year or the year after, but even that lens - released two years earlier than the 200-600 - is still at the top of its game.

The idea of a lens like the Nikon 500/5.6 PF is very attractive. A lightish prime that is easier to transport but performs like a GM. A small but high performing Sony 500/5.6 GM (or f4.5 or 5 - even better) would likely be my birding lens of choice.

--
All the best,
TBri
https://www.flickr.com/people/130803098@N05/

the fe200-600 is less than 3 years old, and it's the best 500mm/600mm superzoom on the market, so i'm not seeing much need for an update any time soon.

You are asking for a lens in the GM line. Expect such a lens to be much more expensive.

MILC man said:

the fe200-600 is less than 3 years old, and it's the best 500mm/600mm superzoom on the market, so i'm not seeing much need for an update any time soon.

Click to expand...

Completely agree. I LOVE mine; It is amazing for what is does.

jbuzzinco said:

If the 200-600 was perhaps f4.5-5.6 and contained more "GM" level glass it would probably cost two or three times what the current version does.

Click to expand...

If "GM glass" means sharper images between 500-600mm, I would be willing to pay double the price. If I shot more wildlife, maybe even 3x times the current price although that would be tempered by how much the weight increased.

I doubt Sony will update this lens anytime soon. It still quite a recently introduced lens, seems to be excellent and is a "G" lens not a "GM". It they brought out a "GM" version I think they would still continue to make the "G" as the "GM" would probably be at least double if not triple the price.

The price of the "G" is about as much as I (and I am sure many others) are prepared to pay for lens that is quite specialised and won't come out very often. It's probably going to be my next lens purchase.

AlephNull said:

Kev The Doc said:

A GM version as a pro zoom to fill the gap between the 200-600G and the 600 f4 GM prime. Faster AF motors, lower min focus distance, better ergonomics e.g controls near the lens balance point etc and any improvements to optics would be a bonus.

Or a G rated 500 f5 prime to fill the same gap in a different way.

Click to expand...

So tempted to suggest a PG13 rated version for shooting sport…

Click to expand...

So would a PG13 rated version simply not focus for say woman's volleyball?