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

Thanks for the responses and interesting comments.

I knew this lens was highly regarded but wasn't aware of the concerns, that some have, about the type of tripod foot used.

I guess my position is like that of Dave Oddie. It is a lens that I would like but would get very limited use. I love to photograph surfing, but live 100 miles from the sea, and 200 miles from any decent surfing locations!

I really don't like the Canon trend towards very slow maximum apertures on some long lenses, and was disappointed when Tamron made their "super telephoto" zoom too short and a bit slower than had previously been the norm.

The new Sigma gets good reviews but the zoom control turns the wrong way and has too long a throw.

Everything points to the Sony. I have read so many times that lenses are investments, (unlike cameras), but the recent updating of lenses makes me concerned that the investment might depreciate a lot if a new lens appears. Hence me asking the question I did.

Thanks again for your thoughtful, sometimes funny, responses.

Full time manual focus.

TK lp said:

Full time manual focus.

Click to expand...

Doesn't it already have that???? There's an AF|MF physical switch on the lens.

I'd like to be able to manually step the focus mechanism to be able to "fine focus" the lens. Either a switch that allows the lens to shift into low range, like a 4WD vehicle does with the transmission, or a step up/down button.
Actually, I'd like to see a camera OS update that allows a fine focus setting.

trainerKEN said:

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.

Click to expand...

Mine couldn't be smoother.

jbuzzinco said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hear hear! The internal zoom is a major point-of-difference feature and the reason many people choose this lens.

Almost every reviewer mentions how much they love it, because it enables effortless finger-tip zooming, and zooms the whole range in such a short movement compared to a zoom action that has to physically make the lens significantly longer.

Lose that and it's 'just another' lens.

AlephNull said:

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!

Click to expand...

Several comments saying "lighter please" in this thread...compared to what?

It is 2.1 kg and so well built that some reviewers say that Sony could have labeled it GM based on build alone. (The main reason it is labeled G is that Sony reserve that label for lenses with their most exotic glass and motor tech.)

The only other 600mm zoom with a comparable build is the original DSLR Sigma Sport that weighs....2.9 kg. So Sony have done a superb job on the weight.

And the relatively plastic new Sigma Sport weighs...2.1 kg.

--
"A picture is a secret about a secret: the more it tells you, the less you know." —Diane Arbus

jbuzzinco said:

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.

Click to expand...

Has anyone reported any 'foot failures' where it becomes loose or breaks?

TN Args said:

AlephNull said:

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!

Click to expand...

Several comments saying "lighter please" in this thread...compared to what?

It is 2.1 kg and so well built that some reviewers say that Sony could have labeled it GM based on build alone. (The main reason it is labeled G is that Sony reserve that label for lenses with their most exotic glass and motor tech.)

The only other 600mm zoom with a comparable build is the original DSLR Sigma Sport that weighs....2.9 kg. So Sony have done a superb job on the weight.

And the relatively plastic new Sigma Sport weighs...2.1 kg.

Click to expand...

Precisely my point.

If Sony invented a new material which weighed one tenth the weight of currently optical glass, I would be delighted, and would upgrade to it (assuming, of course, that its optical performance was as good or better…)

Failing that, well, I own the 200-600 as-is, and use it a bit less often because I’m not as strong as I once was…

TN Args said:

jbuzzinco said:

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.

Click to expand...

Has anyone reported any 'foot failures' where it becomes loose or breaks?

Click to expand...

I have not experienced any type of failure. My concern is just that the OEM lock design has detectable play and can be inadvertently released. Several aftermarket feet share the same design. The RRS design is even worse because the release trigger is not recessed like the trigger on the OEM version. Just putting your hand between the foot and lens to carry it can depress the trigger far enough to release the lock pin. So the only thing holding the foot to the lens at that point is the friction of the side pinch clamp.

That's why I opted for the Hejnar design which bolts into the lens rather than a spring loaded pin. But even that foot's stability is limited by the design of the lens itself as there is only a single 1/4-20 mounting thread under the OEM foot. So you can easily bolt on just about any standard plate you have. I'd still prefer a semi-permanent multiple bolt attachment rather than quick release design.

TN Args said:

jbuzzinco said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hear hear! The internal zoom is a major point-of-difference feature and the reason many people choose this lens.

Almost every reviewer mentions how much they love it, because it enables effortless finger-tip zooming, and zooms the whole range in such a short movement compared to a zoom action that has to physically make the lens significantly longer.

Lose that and it's 'just another' lens.

Click to expand...

To each their own. To me the key USP of this lens is the combination of quality, price and focal length - making it smaller without compromising the image quality would make me pull the trigger on it. The bulk is the only thing that's holding me back currently.

FWIW internal zoom and collapsible are (or at least can be) two different things. Internal zoom means that the lens doesn't extend when you change the focal length; and that's a good thing.

Collapsible means that the lens can be shortened to remove the dead space when not in use. That's what I want.

Here are two Canon 70-200 f4 lenses, on the left the new RF lens, on the right the old style EF lens. The RF lens is 56mm shorter (more than two inches) when in travel mode:

https://bit.ly/35i3U2W

I think the 200-600 could benefit even more from the compression, if I'm right it could be more than 100mm (four inches) shorter than the existing 200-600 when at 200mm, i.e. the same length the the old 70-200 EF linked above.

That compactness would be very useful to me when travelling, as I simply don't have space to carry the 200-600 in its current incarnation. It would tip me into hold luggage territory, and my cameras are NOT going in the hold.

Whilst there is an increased risk of dust ingestion many Sony lenses are not internal zoom, and very few people report dust issues. I don't have any dust issues with my 24-105 f4 G OSS for example.

jbuzzinco said:

TN Args said:

jbuzzinco said:

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.

Click to expand...

Has anyone reported any 'foot failures' where it becomes loose or breaks?

Click to expand...

I have not experienced any type of failure. My concern is just that the OEM lock design has detectable play and can be inadvertently released. Several aftermarket feet share the same design. The RRS design is even worse because the release trigger is not recessed like the trigger on the OEM version. Just putting your hand between the foot and lens to carry it can depress the trigger far enough to release the lock pin. So the only thing holding the foot to the lens at that point is the friction of the side pinch clamp.

That's why I opted for the Hejnar design which bolts into the lens rather than a spring loaded pin. But even that foot's stability is limited by the design of the lens itself as there is only a single 1/4-20 mounting thread under the OEM foot. So you can easily bolt on just about any standard plate you have. I'd still prefer a semi-permanent multiple bolt attachment rather than quick release design.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I use an accessory foot with built in Arca plate and locking screw.


This one

It is a common request that the foot be changed to an integral Arca type.

--
"A picture is a secret about a secret: the more it tells you, the less you know." —Diane Arbus

Lan said:

TN Args said:

jbuzzinco said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hear hear! The internal zoom is a major point-of-difference feature and the reason many people choose this lens.

Almost every reviewer mentions how much they love it, because it enables effortless finger-tip zooming, and zooms the whole range in such a short movement compared to a zoom action that has to physically make the lens significantly longer.

Lose that and it's 'just another' lens.

Click to expand...

To each their own. To me the key USP of this lens is the combination of quality, price and focal length - making it smaller without compromising the image quality would make me pull the trigger on it. The bulk is the only thing that's holding me back currently.

FWIW internal zoom and collapsible are (or at least can be) two different things. Internal zoom means that the lens doesn't extend when you change the focal length; and that's a good thing.

Collapsible means that the lens can be shortened to remove the dead space when not in use. That's what I want.

Click to expand...

Except I don't see anybody doing that (collapsible with internal zoom).

Lan said:

Here are two Canon 70-200 f4 lenses, on the left the new RF lens, on the right the old style EF lens. The RF lens is 56mm shorter (more than two inches) when in travel mode:

https://bit.ly/35i3U2W

Click to expand...

Canon seem to be sacrificing internal zooming (which simply works better, not just a dust advantage) and TC compatibility. Would not like to lose either of those in a 200-600G update.

Lan said:

I think the 200-600 could benefit even more from the compression, if I'm right it could be more than 100mm (four inches) shorter than the existing 200-600 when at 200mm, i.e. the same length the the old 70-200 EF linked above.

That compactness would be very useful to me when travelling, as I simply don't have space to carry the 200-600 in its current incarnation. It would tip me into hold luggage territory, and my cameras are NOT going in the hold.

Click to expand...

I accept your notion of a lock-in, lock-out collapsible update of the 200-600G that still zooms internally. I wonder if there is a reason that nobody seems to be doing it.


Could collapse 50mm based on gap between groups...all else being equal

cheers

--
"A picture is a secret about a secret: the more it tells you, the less you know." —Diane Arbus

jbuzzinco said:

TN Args said:

jbuzzinco said:

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.

Click to expand...

Has anyone reported any 'foot failures' where it becomes loose or breaks?

Click to expand...

I have not experienced any type of failure. My concern is just that the OEM lock design has detectable play and can be inadvertently released.

Click to expand...

i don't have any play at all in the foot assembly of my 200-600, it's rock solid when the screw is fastened down and it can't come off if properly attached.

if there is play in that area it's going to be with the four tiny screws that fasten the plate for the foot assembly to the barrel of the lens, they are too small, that is an area that could be improved... you have to remove the foot to see it of course.

there has been at least one case of someone ignoring those loose screws and then having the mount break off under duress, like when the lens is on a monopod slung over your shoulder.

so everyone who owns this lens should make sure those screws are tight, probably with a JIS screwdriver if possible... don't overtighten, just make sure they are snug.

The only thing really missing is xd linear motors but it is still quite good anyway i would like a zoom lock i sometimes shift my zoom accidentally means i am not always at the required 600mm ,it is a great lens for the money ,only problem to get anything better in native is going to cost you upward of 10k ,ill always lust for 400mm f2,8 or 600mm f4 either will suffice.

MILC man said:

jbuzzinco said:

TN Args said:

jbuzzinco said:

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.

Click to expand...

Has anyone reported any 'foot failures' where it becomes loose or breaks?

Click to expand...

I have not experienced any type of failure. My concern is just that the OEM lock design has detectable play and can be inadvertently released.

Click to expand...

i don't have any play at all in the foot assembly of my 200-600, it's rock solid when the screw is fastened down and it can't come off if properly attached.

if there is play in that area it's going to be with the four tiny screws that fasten the plate for the foot assembly to the barrel of the lens, they are too small, that is an area that could be improved... you have to remove the foot to see it of course.

there has been at least one case of someone ignoring those loose screws and then having the mount break off under duress, like when the lens is on a monopod slung over your shoulder.

so everyone who owns this lens should make sure those screws are tight, probably with a JIS screwdriver if possible... don't overtighten, just make sure they are snug.

Click to expand...

Multiple small fasteners generally supply greater clamping force than fewer large ones. Multiple fasteners are especially better at resisting rotational forces which would be most likely to cause issues with a lens foot. The 4 inner bolts on my lens have never been loose. I can imagine that if those were to come loose or to never have been properly torqued that you'd have trouble.

I would be very interested in a replacement foot that mounted directly to the collar using those 4 screws rather than to the silver tripod plate.

jbuzzinco said:

MILC man said:

jbuzzinco said:

TN Args said:

jbuzzinco said:

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.

Click to expand...

Has anyone reported any 'foot failures' where it becomes loose or breaks?

Click to expand...

I have not experienced any type of failure. My concern is just that the OEM lock design has detectable play and can be inadvertently released.

Click to expand...

i don't have any play at all in the foot assembly of my 200-600, it's rock solid when the screw is fastened down and it can't come off if properly attached.

if there is play in that area it's going to be with the four tiny screws that fasten the plate for the foot assembly to the barrel of the lens, they are too small, that is an area that could be improved... you have to remove the foot to see it of course.

there has been at least one case of someone ignoring those loose screws and then having the mount break off under duress, like when the lens is on a monopod slung over your shoulder.

so everyone who owns this lens should make sure those screws are tight, probably with a JIS screwdriver if possible... don't overtighten, just make sure they are snug.

Click to expand...

Multiple small fasteners generally supply greater clamping force than fewer large ones.

Click to expand...

yes it would have been better if sony went with six tiny screws instead of four.

or at least use bigger screws, these are tiny.

jbuzzinco said:

Multiple fasteners are especially better at resisting rotational forces which would be most likely to cause issues with a lens foot. The 4 inner bolts on my lens have never been loose. I can imagine that if those were to come loose or to never have been properly torqued that you'd have trouble.

I would be very interested in a replacement foot that mounted directly to the collar using those 4 screws rather than to the silver tripod plate.

Click to expand...

mounting it directly with bigger screws would have been cheaper to make, i guess that they were looking for some sort of universal mounting situation with the current implementation.

here is a thread with a photo of the mount plate with a missing screw, it apparently fell out: 200-600 lens/How do find the screw size for the foot base?: Sony Mirrorless Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

there was another thread on fm that showed the lens collar damage from the plate being wrenched out due to the loose screws, it broke the metal surround hole that the plate is located in, and the lens hit the ground >ack< the guy that posted it apparently took the photos down, it was a disturbing sight to see.

Leave the 200-600 alone

Add a 400-800mm 5.6 - 6.3

And I'll be the first in line

dv312 said:

Leave the 200-600 alone

Add a 400-800mm 5.6 - 6.3

And I'll be the first in line

Click to expand...

I think that's asking a lot - and would be large and expensive. Out of curiosity, would there be interest in a 400-800 6.3-8?

travelinbri_74 said:

dv312 said:

Leave the 200-600 alone

Add a 400-800mm 5.6 - 6.3

And I'll be the first in line

Click to expand...

I think that's asking a lot - and would be large and expensive. Out of curiosity, would there be interest in a 400-800 6.3-8?

Click to expand...

Yes if internal zoom and reasonably priced

For right now the 1.4TC is almost always coupled with my 200-600 yielding f9 by default at 840mm

So 800mm at f8 would give me a half stop of light