A-mount, 500mm f/4 G and long telephoto lenses

[Ed at Ridersite]

Thanks for posting these results. I would never purchase the 500mm f4 or even the 400 f2.8. Both are too heavy to use hand held - at least for me. I do have one question. Why no Sony 100-400mm f4.5-5.6? This lens works with TCs, is very light and gets stellar reviews.

--
AEH
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/blog
Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri. Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!

 

[cocciasik]

Thanks for posting these results. I would never purchase the 500mm f4 or even the 400 f2.8. Both are too heavy to use hand held - at least for me. I do have one question. Why no Sony 100-400mm f4.5-5.6? This lens works with TCs, is very light and gets stellar reviews.

While the 400mm is definitely hand holdable, I do agree that it is not ideal without a tripod.

As for the 100-400, I already own the 70-400 A-mount, which I use with A99II and works very well with the newest E-mount cameras. I guess the 100-400 performs better, both in terms of IQ and AF, but I am getting good results with my lens. Therefore, I have no plan to replace it soon. But you are right, maybe I will change it sooner than later

 

[Clyde Thomas]

Think you will find if you look back through the forum that Clyde did indeed test a SAL500 that had issues, even frying the SSM fuse in 2 of his A99ii bodies. Mind you though that was a second hand lens coming out of a rental company.

Luckily Sony stepped up to the plate and fixed his camera's at a decent price after the place he got the lens from just washed their hands of the whole thing.
Hence why he wondered if his tested lens and yours might just be the same one, they both showed similar results from memory.

Yes I looked for the thread and can't find it. But you've got a great memory Snowfella, sharper than the 500 I returned.

 

[Clyde Thomas]

Let me repeat it again: Telephoto lenses behave better in corners than wide angle lenses. That’s a fact.

Repetition doesn't make it a universal fact.

Here's a real world test demonstrating the Minolta 300mm falls apart in the corners , compared to the others like Sony 300 and Minolta 200w/1.4x.

But to know a lens, you need to shoot it beyond testing for a weekend on test charts.

You need to own a lens to master it, not to test its sharpness.

Ok you say master, I say know. Did you just agree with me?

Please remember that my post is ONLY about sharpness. To test sharpness, you need a few minutes and a test chart. ISO standardized the chart I used for a reason, don’t you think?

Yes, to the ISO chart for standardization. No to the idea that all you need is a few minutes and piece of paper. In order to make global universal statements, you also need technique and sample variation on both lens and cameras. I assume you had the technique part. Looks like you did fine on that. But all you can honestly claim are evidence found about your particular copy of lens with your particular camera used. You cannot make absolute truth claims for all copies of those combos or variations of those combos.

Again: my post is about sharpness. I didn’t review other aspects.

Understood.

You said that I needed to own the lens more time to understand it’s sharpness. That is totally wrong:

No I did not. I said in effect shooting beyond testing allows you to know a lens... And statements made from your sharpness testing cannot be considered absolute for all lenses of the same model... Thus claims that suggest your 500/G performance is unacceptable for a 13K lens are only applicable to your situation. I feel for ya... I've been there, right there with ya. It stinks big time. But it's not a universal truth. And I can say the same for many other lenses from many brands I've used over the years. There are lemons.

it takes a few minutes, and I brought Robert Cicala as an example of why my statement is correct.

You shouldn't site Cicala unless you abide by his testing methods for multiple copies, showing variations between them, and noting the averages. You have no business using Cicala as an example unless you use his methods as an example for yourself.

Please, do not compare lenses with your past memories.

Woah friend... I certainly shall compare past memories from hard won field experience. They are worth far more to me than your test charts of a single lens.

test charts are better than memories to compare sharpness. It’s a fact, not an opinion.

Your memory of Minolta 300 corner sharpness has been challenged in the above link.

i owned a Minolta 300 2.8 HS and loved it. Amazing lens. But I prefer my SAL300F28GII. This says nothing about sharpness, and indeed they have comparable sharpness.

In the center only.

I live in Italy and my copy is brand new. It could be copy variation, I already said that. But this is unacceptable for a 13k dollar lens.

I agree. Your interest in the EMount version is justified in your situation. But others happy with A-Mount, and with good copies of the lens may disagree with you.

As well, the photographers using such a lens don't typically do reviews.

That is only your opinion. Everybody can do reviews.

Yes my friend. Everybody (anybody) can do reviews. But everybody doesn't. It's very very rare to see a working professional photographer do chart testing... which is much different than a review. In your case, to prove your particular lens has sharpness issues wide open, then chart testing is the appropriate method for illustrating the issue to the point of return. I did the same thing when returning my 500G. I just didn't suspect/suggest that all 500G's were the same as mine.

--
Here to help. Here to learn.

 

[tqlla]

Think you will find if you look back through the forum that Clyde did indeed test a SAL500 that had issues, even frying the SSM fuse in 2 of his A99ii bodies. Mind you though that was a second hand lens coming out of a rental company.

Luckily Sony stepped up to the plate and fixed his camera's at a decent price after the place he got the lens from just washed their hands of the whole thing.
Hence why he wondered if his tested lens and yours might just be the same one, they both showed similar results from memory.

Yes I looked for the thread and can't find it. But you've got a great memory Snowfella, sharper than the 500 I returned.

Search for borrowlenses.com
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4266425?page=5
What a great sale that was. I wish I bought more!

• 50mm Zeiss ($430)
• 135mm Zeiss ($520)
• 2x Sony A58 ($60 each)
• Sony RX1 ($600)
• Sony RX1Rii ($930 later, otherwise I wouldnt have bought the RX1)

I check on their site often, not many good sales since then :/

 

[Clyde Thomas]

Please read carefully what I wrote in my original post.

I know why you used the a7rII, and I agree with you as to why in this situation.

My problem isn't your testing method. My problem is your global statement the the 500G is "no longer acceptable". I disagree. If you want better AF than a7RIII, and/or higher MP than a9, and you get a good copy of the 500G, then it is more than acceptable, and arguably superior.

Here is the story. I wanted to buy a lens to upgrade my Minolta 600mm and I wanted to stick to A-mount because I love A99II. I bought a brand new SAL500F4G. I was shocked by the fact that Minolta is sharper wide open.

Yeah me too. Same story. You might find a post from me about the same thing from a year ago. I just didn't suggest that the entire line of 500G's were unacceptable based upon my one experience.

This is totally fair and since I am not irresponsible but I want to share my experience with others, I am providing objective evidences and not just opinions.

Yes I did the same. But you can share your experience in an irresponsible way. Sharing is encouraged, and we can empathize with your particular situation, offer opinions and perhaps helpful suggestions. But when your shared experience is put forth as a universal truth, it can affect those who are served well by good copies of the same. I don't think any photographer deserves the resale value of their lens be lowered by irresponsible universal claims of another.

--
Here to help. Here to learn.

 

[Clyde Thomas]

Think you will find if you look back through the forum that Clyde did indeed test a SAL500 that had issues, even frying the SSM fuse in 2 of his A99ii bodies. Mind you though that was a second hand lens coming out of a rental company.

Luckily Sony stepped up to the plate and fixed his camera's at a decent price after the place he got the lens from just washed their hands of the whole thing.
Hence why he wondered if his tested lens and yours might just be the same one, they both showed similar results from memory.

Yes I looked for the thread and can't find it. But you've got a great memory Snowfella, sharper than the 500 I returned.

Search for borrowlenses.com
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4266425?page=5
What a great sale that was. I wish I bought more!

• 50mm Zeiss ($430)
• 135mm Zeiss ($520)
• 2x Sony A58 ($60 each)
• Sony RX1 ($600)
• Sony RX1Rii ($930 later, otherwise I wouldnt have bought the RX1)

I check on their site often, not many good sales since then :/

Wow you found it... Wow! I kept searching for my name and 500mm. Nice one with the borrowlenses search.

And here is the test I performed very similar to the OP

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60939529

Not to mention the problems I had afterwards. It's been a year of weirdness, and Sony finally sent me two brand new a99II camera replacements just a week ago. I've had my share of woes. I see no reason to project them upon others or make universal claims from one off personal experience.

I remember now using a depth based target rather than test chart, specifically to allow for focus errors.

--
Here to help. Here to learn.

 

[steelhead3]

I don't know what the problem is with that lens but it is not representative. I am one of the few people on this forum who own the the 500 as well as the 300 & 600. I normally shoot wide open with the 500 and have no complaints on sharpness. My 300 ssm is knife sharp from 2.8 on. The 600 is a little different and shows mis focus just as your example. MFA is different for different focal distances and if wrong will show veiling haze as well as a lot of purple fringing.

 

[ActionPhotoPassion]

Let me repeat it again: Telephoto lenses behave better in corners than wide angle lenses. That’s a fact.

Repetition doesn't make it a universal fact.

Here's a real world test demonstrating the Minolta 300mm falls apart in the corners , compared to the others like Sony 300 and Minolta 200w/1.4x.

But to know a lens, you need to shoot it beyond testing for a weekend on test charts.

You need to own a lens to master it, not to test its sharpness.

Ok you say master, I say know. Did you just agree with me?

Please remember that my post is ONLY about sharpness. To test sharpness, you need a few minutes and a test chart. ISO standardized the chart I used for a reason, don’t you think?

Yes, to the ISO chart for standardization. No to the idea that all you need is a few minutes and piece of paper. In order to make global universal statements, you also need technique and sample variation on both lens and cameras. I assume you had the technique part. Looks like you did fine on that. But all you can honestly claim are evidence found about your particular copy of lens with your particular camera used. You cannot make absolute truth claims for all copies of those combos or variations of those combos.

Again: my post is about sharpness. I didn’t review other aspects.

Understood.

You said that I needed to own the lens more time to understand it’s sharpness. That is totally wrong:

No I did not. I said in effect shooting beyond testing allows you to know a lens... And statements made from your sharpness testing cannot be considered absolute for all lenses of the same model... Thus claims that suggest your 500/G performance is unacceptable for a 13K lens are only applicable to your situation. I feel for ya... I've been there, right there with ya. It stinks big time. But it's not a universal truth. And I can say the same for many other lenses from many brands I've used over the years. There are lemons.

it takes a few minutes, and I brought Robert Cicala as an example of why my statement is correct.

You shouldn't site Cicala unless you abide by his testing methods for multiple copies, showing variations between them, and noting the averages. You have no business using Cicala as an example unless you use his methods as an example for yourself.

Please, do not compare lenses with your past memories.

Woah friend... I certainly shall compare past memories from hard won field experience. They are worth far more to me than your test charts of a single lens.

test charts are better than memories to compare sharpness. It’s a fact, not an opinion.

Your memory of Minolta 300 corner sharpness has been challenged in the above link.

i owned a Minolta 300 2.8 HS and loved it. Amazing lens. But I prefer my SAL300F28GII. This says nothing about sharpness, and indeed they have comparable sharpness.

In the center only.

I live in Italy and my copy is brand new. It could be copy variation, I already said that. But this is unacceptable for a 13k dollar lens.

I agree. Your interest in the EMount version is justified in your situation. But others happy with A-Mount, and with good copies of the lens may disagree with you.

As well, the photographers using such a lens don't typically do reviews.

That is only your opinion. Everybody can do reviews.

Yes my friend. Everybody (anybody) can do reviews. But everybody doesn't. It's very very rare to see a working professional photographer do chart testing... which is much different than a review. In your case, to prove your particular lens has sharpness issues wide open, then chart testing is the appropriate method for illustrating the issue to the point of return. I did the same thing when returning my 500G. I just didn't suspect/suggest that all 500G's were the same as mine.

 

[cocciasik]

Repetition doesn't make it a universal fact.

Here's a real world test demonstrating the Minolta 300mm falls apart in the corners , compared to the others like Sony 300 and Minolta 200w/1.4x.

Honestly: do you find corner sharpness for the Minolta 300 horrible? It is worse than center, but not unacceptable.

In any case, the same Robert Cicala that you accepted as a trustworthy person, in the review of the new Sony 135mmm that I posted before said that the 135mm has an MTF curve that you typically find in super telephoto lenses. Shall we blame him for being too generic?

But to know a lens, you need to shoot it beyond testing for a weekend on test charts.

You need to own a lens to master it, not to test its sharpness.

Ok you say master, I say know. Did you just agree with me?

No, I disagree. You do not need to know the lens test its sharpness.

Thus claims that suggest your 500/G performance is unacceptable for a 13K lens are only applicable to your situation. I feel for ya... I've been there, right there with ya. It stinks big time. But it's not a universal truth. And I can say the same for many other lenses from many brands I've used over the years. There are lemons.

Good for you if after spending 13k$ you expect a lemon. Sorry, a lens of that price, made on order, needs to be tested carefully before leaving the factory. I am not irrespectful to anybody if I say that it should not happen.

In any case my case shows that Sony has poor copy variation with this 500mm. So gents, go buy one but test it carefully within your 30 days return period.

You shouldn't site Cicala unless you abide by his testing methods for multiple copies, showing variations between them, and noting the averages. You have no business using Cicala as an example unless you use his methods as an example for yourself.

I am not saying I am as good as Cicala, far far far away from me. I am just saying that you can test the sharpness of a lens with methodology and test charts. And you do not need to "know" the lens.

Yes my friend. Everybody (anybody) can do reviews. But everybody doesn't. It's very very rare to see a working professional photographer do chart testing... which is much different than a review. In your case, to prove your particular lens has sharpness issues wide open, then chart testing is the appropriate method for illustrating the issue to the point of return. I did the same thing when returning my 500G. I just didn't suspect/suggest that all 500G's were the same as mine.

First of all, sorry for my poor English -- it is not my primary language, but I believe you already guessed it. And no, you can be professional and picky about things that you buy, and willing to share your knowledge with others. Willing to learn and to teach.

Second, correct me if I am wrong, but you bought a used lens for 4500$ and you returned it, right? If that is the case, we are talking about a different scenario. A used lens can be damaged in so many ways. I bought a used SAL300F28GII, it was faulty, then I returned it and bought a new one which I still own.

Third, did I understand correctly that you own a good copy of a 500mm? If yes, could you please show me what a picture shoot at f/4 looks like? That would be very helpful for the community. If possible, take the same picture at f/5.6 and I will apologize for my bad advertisement for Sony.

 

[cocciasik]

This is totally fair and since I am not irresponsible but I want to share my experience with others, I am providing objective evidences and not just opinions.

Yes I did the same. But you can share your experience in an irresponsible way. Sharing is encouraged, and we can empathize with your particular situation, offer opinions and perhaps helpful suggestions. But when your shared experience is put forth as a universal truth, it can affect those who are served well by good copies of the same. I don't think any photographer deserves the resale value of their lens be lowered by irresponsible universal claims of another.

I shared the pictures that I took. So anybody can verify my claim. You can read what I write, agree or disagree, but you cannot deny evidence. At least you can claim that my copy of the 500mm is faulty because I provided a proof.

On the contrary, we just have to trust that you own a good copy. If by any chance it had the same problem that my copy had, you would be as irresponsible as me by letting people believe that you can find a super sharp 500mm wide open out there.

 

[Clyde Thomas]

Well I have to admit that for a lens manufactured on demand of more than 10kish having sample variation is unacceptable and relevant to very bad QC and I could add very bad customer service in fact.

If you have a client ready to unload such an amount from his wallet the minimum you do is a red carpet service at all stages... Just my opinion as a client. Reminds me the movie wolf of Wallstreet "the client?! We f**k the client" ...

No argument there. Sony is pretty sparse with red carpet treatment on the retail side. But the Pro Services has bent over backward with the royalty treatment. I feel so guilty about it that I don't want to share. Insane... they offered me new VII replacements of 16-35ZA and 70-200GII for $800 USD each. They'd rather do that than fix my V1 models. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't want to talk about it. Not sure if I can.

I think if I'd have kept the 500G, they would have replaced it with another no problem. I may request a sample to test. It's part of the free loaner program. I'm just not using big tele's anymore, having sold the last 300/G2 yesterday as a matter of fact.

 

[Clyde Thomas]

Repetition doesn't make it a universal fact.

Here's a real world test demonstrating the Minolta 300mm falls apart in the corners , compared to the others like Sony 300 and Minolta 200w/1.4x.

Honestly: do you find corner sharpness for the Minolta 300 horrible? It is worse than center, but not unacceptable.

Never a copy I have owned has provided critical sharpness on top vertical edge where model face is. It's always been decent enough on film, and barely good enough on a900/99. But a99II really pressures the lens far more. But center sharpness is great, and sometimes better than Sony G version. I need the edge sharpness more than anything.

In any case, the same Robert Cicala that you accepted as a trustworthy person,

For certain things he has earned trust for. I have no idea if he's noteworthy for real world shooting. He doesn't test anything for that.

in the review of the new Sony 135mmm that I posted before said that the 135mm has an MTF curve that you typically find in super telephoto lenses. Shall we blame him for being too generic?

Wha? I really don't understand your question.

But to know a lens, you need to shoot it beyond testing for a weekend on test charts.

You need to own a lens to master it, not to test its sharpness.

Ok you say master, I say know. Did you just agree with me?

No, I disagree. You do not need to know the lens test its sharpness.

This is getting funny. My favorite part of our discussion actually.

I never said "need to know the lens (to) test sharpness".

I said practically the opposite... Sharpness testing can be done in the camera store. But that doesn't mean you know the lens... Or as you say "master" the lens.

Good for you if after spending 13k$ you expect a lemon.

Why would that be good for me? I'm not claiming it's good for you.

Sorry, a lens of that price, made on order, needs to be tested carefully before leaving the factory. I am not irrespectful to anybody if I say that it should not happen.

Yes absolutely I agree better QC is expected.

Only disrespectful to suggest they are all like that, "unusable", and to suggest we're all better off with a new EMount 400/2.8. That's a you thing man. Though I understand the frustration is tempting to make universal claims. I'm sure this is extremely frustrating for you. Sorry for you bro.

In any case my case shows that Sony has poor copy variation with this 500mm. So gents, go buy one but test it carefully within your 30 days return period.

Perfect.

I am not saying I am as good as Cicala, far far far away from me. I am just saying that you can test the sharpness of a lens with methodology and test charts. And you do not need to "know" the lens.

We agree. I never suggested otherwise.

First of all, sorry for my poor English -- it is not my primary language,

You're doing great, no problem. Much better than I would, so bravo.

And no, you can be professional and picky about things that you buy, and willing to share your knowledge with others. Willing to learn and to teach.

Yep, that's why I'm here.

Second, correct me if I am wrong, but you bought a used lens for 4500$ and you returned it, right? If that is the case, we are talking about a different scenario. A used lens can be damaged in so many ways. I bought a used SAL300F28GII, it was faulty, then I returned it and bought a new one which I still own.

Yes.

Third, did I understand correctly that you own a good copy of a 500mm?

No.

If possible, take the same picture at f/5.6 and I will apologize for my bad advertisement for Sony.

Somewhere on this thread, I linked to my previous test very similar to yours. That's why I sent it back. The lens came to me very dirty and bruised. I cleaned it with magic eraser and literally got it to spotless brand new condition.

I purchased it for under $5G... But when I sent it back with proof of fault, they relisted the same lens for $9000, without a word spoken about the problem. Point being, retailers are not always the most scrupulous. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the company sold to another company as new, and passed it along to you.

Perhaps there is an Achilles Heel in the lens, maybe for all of them. They might leave the factory in perfect spec... But a certain bump or drop from a certain height has a certain effect of dislodging a certain lens element that makes it shoot soft wide open.

And I know we like to think these are made special order... But not all are. Surely was an initial batch from launch to cover athletic events, Pro Services, and rental houses... Then the special orders started. Who knows what lens came from where... Who knows?

But the one DxO got rated sharper than the Nikon version on D800.

--
Here to help. Here to learn.

 

[Clyde Thomas]

I shared the pictures that I took. So anybody can verify my claim.

So did I, linked it somewhere on this thread.

The difference between us is that I only illustrated my problem as personal without any recourse to suggest they are all like that, "unusable" and suggest an entirely different lens from a different mount would better serve us all. And I didn't use it as a platform to suggest Sony 300 was almost on par with Minolta 300. I simply challenged you on that claim.

Look man, I hope you get the lens you want, for the price you want, with the service you deserve, and the quality you expect.

 

[Clyde Thomas]

Did you have to wait the 6-10 weeks for a special order lens to be manufactured?

If not, then there is a serious possibility that it was sourced from a Pro Services stock, or from a rental house that didn't see much mileage on it. No doubt there are some bad ones out there. Sorry you got one.

 

[Lensmate]

Did you have to wait the 6-10 weeks for a special order lens to be manufactured?

If not, then there is a serious possibility that it was sourced from a Pro Services stock, or from a rental house that didn't see much mileage on it. No doubt there are some bad ones out there. Sorry you got one.

Did you record the serial number of the faulty second hand 500mm f4 lens you received? How ironic this would be if this Italian chap got lumbered with it... wonder if he recorded the serial number as well.

-Martin P

Martin Passchier

Explore Martin Passchier’s 973 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Lensmate]

You didn't use the correct exposure value on the F4 capture. Here's what a correctly exposed F4 image will look like with this lens, along with one at f8.

-Martin P

https://www.flickr.com/photos/photosauraus_rex/

Martin, I am not a telephoto person, but in my opinion the F8 image with 1.4TC looks much better than the F4 image.
Is that nest near your house? Maybe you can take a picture of it at F4 and F5.6 and F8 back to back to back so we can see the difference?

One can never truly judge sharpness based on a 1920 X 1080 px resampled image but the f:4 image actually looks very sharp!

Is it resampled? I was sure it was a crop.

OP1380 is correct, I never post hi-res, or originals for obvious reasons. The images get resized in PS to 1920x1080 HD size, which is good enough for various purposes.

-Martin P

https://www.flickr.com/photos/photosauraus_rex/

 

[Lensmate]

One can never truly judge sharpness based on a 1920 X 1080 px resampled image but the f:4 image actually looks very sharp!

It is not very sharp. It is a beautiful image, no question about it. It has a veiling haze that disturbs me. It could have been sharper. But hey, not everyone has to be pixel peeper -- it is kind of a disease, better off that you are not!!!

Pixel peeping is not truly representative of sharpness. Do that to a magazine cover and you'll just see ink dots...

-Martin P

Martin Passchier

Explore Martin Passchier’s 973 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[ActionPhotoPassion]

Well I have to admit that for a lens manufactured on demand of more than 10kish having sample variation is unacceptable and relevant to very bad QC and I could add very bad customer service in fact.

If you have a client ready to unload such an amount from his wallet the minimum you do is a red carpet service at all stages... Just my opinion as a client. Reminds me the movie wolf of Wallstreet "the client?! We f**k the client" ...

No argument there. Sony is pretty sparse with red carpet treatment on the retail side. But the Pro Services has bent over backward with the royalty treatment. I feel so guilty about it that I don't want to share. Insane... they offered me new VII replacements of 16-35ZA and 70-200GII for $800 USD each. They'd rather do that than fix my V1 models. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't want to talk about it. Not sure if I can.

I think if I'd have kept the 500G, they would have replaced it with another no problem. I may request a sample to test. It's part of the free loaner program. I'm just not using big tele's anymore, having sold the last 300/G2 yesterday as a matter of fact.

Hmm on the contrary there is nothing to be ashamed about this on the very contrary. It's exactly the kind of thing that has to be shared to the community.

Now if the commitment to A-mount from Sony is to propose an excellent support for corporates that's a good start but needs to be precised too...

But personally I only see a positive attitude in your experience, and typically the type of one that has to be shared.

 

[cocciasik]

My impression is that we have fallen into a loop. We are not adding that much value to the discussion with our latest posts. We expressed our point of view very clearly, let others decide what is the takeaway of this thread for them.