Douglas F Watt
Senior Member
This is an expensive but premium quality long telephoto for A mount. Its only real competition in terms of tele zooms for A mount is the Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3 (and I can speak from experience, as I own both lens, along with several Minolta telephoto primes). This review offers some brief comparison of these lenses, all of which offer good to great image quality, and good to excellent value (the Sony G2 being the better lens overall, but the Tamron perhaps being the better value). Any A Mount body shooter (Alpha 77/77m2/65/55/57/58/33/35 as well as the older Sony DSLRs) looking for a long telephoto should look carefully at this lens, the Tamron 150-600, and the classic Minolta primes (available used in various states of preservation) before deciding which to buy. I would also recommend consulting the full body of reviews for all these lenses on Dyxum, which is a treasure trove of information about the entire A mount lens ecology. There are lots of good options in other words.
Pros
1) Optimized for sharpness at the long end - sharper at the long end than any other tele zoom, including the new Tamron, and premium Canikon competing products. Quite sharp on APS-C and FF at wide end and in middle FL stopped down slightly. Overall, a very sharp optic, close to the class leading (for A mount) Minolta 400 4.5 prime which is probably the benchmark for sharpness at 400mm for Alpha mount
2) Compact size (but extends on zoom to a rather long lens ~ 13”)
3) Virtually no CA or PF (purple fringing, esp. on bright edges, the principle problem with many of the great Minolta legacy tele primes - but easily corrected in PP)
4) Built like a tank, like most Sony G lenses
5) Excellent focus limiter
6) Has corrections for vignetting, CA (which is minimal anyway), and distortion (also minimal) in firmware for many A mount bodies - something no 3rd party lens can claim
7) Very quiet and fast focusing, significantly faster than G1 version and screw drive legacy lenses (advantage SSM).
8) Better functioning at the long end than competing Canikon products, which typically soften at long end
9) Great soft case that really protects the lens in case of those potentially disastrous drops
Cons:
1) Heavy (but still lighter than the competition)
2) Expensive (roughly twice the price of Tamron 150-600) and only slightly less than used Minolta 400 4.5 in great condition (which is slightly sharper lens and can use x1.4 TC to get additional reach to 560mm with little loss of sharpness)
3) Due to being only f5.6 at long end, no AF functionality with Sony or Minolta TCs (but can use Kenko 1.4TC but with slowed AF)
4) Hood strikes me as a bit fragile, particularly for such a heavy lens. Replacement cost is likely to be ridiculous (Sony baloney?)
5) Slightly stiff zoom ring (probably mildly binding from rubber zoom ring)?
5) That’s it - no real major cons in terms of functionality, just premium cost for a premium lens
So how does this stack up against the Minolta primes, the Tamron 150-600 and the older Sigma tele zooms, with both the Sigma and Tamron zooms being less than half the cost? Well, like in relationship to a lot of other technology items, you truly get what you pay for. It’s sharper at 400mm than any of the Tamron or Sigma zooms (only slightly sharper than the new Tamron), and cropped images from the Sony at 400mm compare well to the Tamron at 600mm, which gets pretty soft frankly all the way out, and not nearly as sharp all the way out as the Sony is at 400. This suggests that the extra 200mm of the Tamron doesn’t really get you that much - however at 400mm the Tamron is close in sharpness to the Sony. So once again, there are basic tradeoffs. The Sony is lighter and more compact, slightly sharper, but lots more $. For BIF shooting, probably would vote for the Sony G2.
For a bit more money ($2500-3000 for excellent to mint copy) the Minolta 400 4.5 might be sharper, but only a little, although it is also a full stop faster. Although the Minolta and the Sony are close in sharpness wide open, if you set both at 5.6 (that’s still wide open for the Sony G2 and a full stop down for the Minolta prime), you would find the Minolta a bit sharper even than the Sony G2, but OTOH, you will have a bit more PF/CA on the Minolta, and it’s quite a bit heavier and . . . more money (!). The Minolta prime won’t focus as fast or as quietly, but it can use 1.4TC to get to 560mm. While the SSM of the Sony seems like a big advantage, the old screw drive AF on the Minolta tele prime is still competitive, and the excellent AF system on the Sony A77ii breaths new life into many older legacy Minolta screw drives. As a big plus, the Sony G2 is significantly lighter at 1500 g than either a Minolta 400 tele prime (quite heavy at 1900 g), or the Tamron 150-600 (1950 g) or the Sigma 50-150 (1840 g). Its 3.3 lbs is just on the limit of what you can wear on your Black Rapid or competing strap system.
Hopefully, this gives you a quick survey of the options for long telephoto zooms on your Alpha body. Like I have emphasized in relationship to many other DP technology issues, it's all about which tradeoffs you want to make, including cost being traded off against all other functional virtues.
Highly recommended overall, and more compact than the prime or tele zoom competition. I am only giving 4.5 stars due to cost - if priced at $1600, would be easily 5/5.
Pros
1) Optimized for sharpness at the long end - sharper at the long end than any other tele zoom, including the new Tamron, and premium Canikon competing products. Quite sharp on APS-C and FF at wide end and in middle FL stopped down slightly. Overall, a very sharp optic, close to the class leading (for A mount) Minolta 400 4.5 prime which is probably the benchmark for sharpness at 400mm for Alpha mount
2) Compact size (but extends on zoom to a rather long lens ~ 13”)
3) Virtually no CA or PF (purple fringing, esp. on bright edges, the principle problem with many of the great Minolta legacy tele primes - but easily corrected in PP)
4) Built like a tank, like most Sony G lenses
5) Excellent focus limiter
6) Has corrections for vignetting, CA (which is minimal anyway), and distortion (also minimal) in firmware for many A mount bodies - something no 3rd party lens can claim
7) Very quiet and fast focusing, significantly faster than G1 version and screw drive legacy lenses (advantage SSM).
8) Better functioning at the long end than competing Canikon products, which typically soften at long end
9) Great soft case that really protects the lens in case of those potentially disastrous drops
Cons:
1) Heavy (but still lighter than the competition)
2) Expensive (roughly twice the price of Tamron 150-600) and only slightly less than used Minolta 400 4.5 in great condition (which is slightly sharper lens and can use x1.4 TC to get additional reach to 560mm with little loss of sharpness)
3) Due to being only f5.6 at long end, no AF functionality with Sony or Minolta TCs (but can use Kenko 1.4TC but with slowed AF)
4) Hood strikes me as a bit fragile, particularly for such a heavy lens. Replacement cost is likely to be ridiculous (Sony baloney?)
5) Slightly stiff zoom ring (probably mildly binding from rubber zoom ring)?
5) That’s it - no real major cons in terms of functionality, just premium cost for a premium lens
So how does this stack up against the Minolta primes, the Tamron 150-600 and the older Sigma tele zooms, with both the Sigma and Tamron zooms being less than half the cost? Well, like in relationship to a lot of other technology items, you truly get what you pay for. It’s sharper at 400mm than any of the Tamron or Sigma zooms (only slightly sharper than the new Tamron), and cropped images from the Sony at 400mm compare well to the Tamron at 600mm, which gets pretty soft frankly all the way out, and not nearly as sharp all the way out as the Sony is at 400. This suggests that the extra 200mm of the Tamron doesn’t really get you that much - however at 400mm the Tamron is close in sharpness to the Sony. So once again, there are basic tradeoffs. The Sony is lighter and more compact, slightly sharper, but lots more $. For BIF shooting, probably would vote for the Sony G2.
For a bit more money ($2500-3000 for excellent to mint copy) the Minolta 400 4.5 might be sharper, but only a little, although it is also a full stop faster. Although the Minolta and the Sony are close in sharpness wide open, if you set both at 5.6 (that’s still wide open for the Sony G2 and a full stop down for the Minolta prime), you would find the Minolta a bit sharper even than the Sony G2, but OTOH, you will have a bit more PF/CA on the Minolta, and it’s quite a bit heavier and . . . more money (!). The Minolta prime won’t focus as fast or as quietly, but it can use 1.4TC to get to 560mm. While the SSM of the Sony seems like a big advantage, the old screw drive AF on the Minolta tele prime is still competitive, and the excellent AF system on the Sony A77ii breaths new life into many older legacy Minolta screw drives. As a big plus, the Sony G2 is significantly lighter at 1500 g than either a Minolta 400 tele prime (quite heavy at 1900 g), or the Tamron 150-600 (1950 g) or the Sigma 50-150 (1840 g). Its 3.3 lbs is just on the limit of what you can wear on your Black Rapid or competing strap system.
Hopefully, this gives you a quick survey of the options for long telephoto zooms on your Alpha body. Like I have emphasized in relationship to many other DP technology issues, it's all about which tradeoffs you want to make, including cost being traded off against all other functional virtues.
Highly recommended overall, and more compact than the prime or tele zoom competition. I am only giving 4.5 stars due to cost - if priced at $1600, would be easily 5/5.
