Sample gallery: Sony FE 400mm F2.8 GM OSS

Did they post videos only? You can't tell jack from a low quality youtube video.

Jun 29, 2018*permalink

monked

Dpreview comments section continues to delight.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

Edgar_in_Indy

Why does every thread have to have sanctimonious whiners?

It's called the internet. If you find it so distressing, then leave.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

jackspra

Can it work in the premier league.Players move a lot faster.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

chriskeats

from contract to contract? seems unfair to ask even an (likely to be) overpriced lens to capture that
thought the samples looked pretty good dp boys

Jun 29, 2018permalink

@ jackspra: If this lens and the A9 can't catch up, which camera would you suggest for doing such action photography?

C/N high end cameras with a mirror that block autofocus when in upper position, with their much slower AF lenses?

Jun 29, 2018*permalink

I can't take great sports photos with a Flagship DSLR....said no pro photographer ever.

Jun 29, 2018*permalink

jackspra

D5. 1DX2 D500.

Jul 1, 2018permalink

@ jackspra: All capable cameras, but then you have to deal with bulkier, heavier ans slower cameras than the A9, and much heavier and even front heavy 400 mm f:2.8 lenses with slower AF. So I have to repeat your original post: "Can it work in the premier league. Players move a lot faster." :-)

Jul 1, 2018permalink

jackspra

The stuff they do looks great though.

Jul 2, 2018permalink

taruaS

Thanks to all the salesmen and shills on Youtube, Tony and Chelsea, Jared and Ted and Steve and Gordon and Matt, etc etc, this two-bit game has had more media coverage than the frickin World Cup.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Richmondthefish

Off topic but I'd like to see this on a A7R3 for 4k video

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Is it only me or do all these new cameras produce grainy images? The photos look fine at normal viewing size (except maybe the gory colours), but as soon as you zoom in 1:1 the grain appears, even at 800 ISO. I mean this is only a 24 Megapixel sensor with big photosites. Shouldn't images look better?

Jun 28, 2018permalink

If a sensor that is among the best performers is not good enough for you, I wonder where you will go to find a better and faster sensor performance.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

@Magnar W my point is, I think we have reached a limit in sensor technology. All the rest is just marketing hype. These shots look no better than what a 5 year old DSLR can produce In my eyes.

Jun 28, 2018*permalink

CreeDo

The difference is, the grain at 100% pixel-peeping might look similar to 100% grain five years ago, but now you get that grain on 24 megapixels instead of 18 or whatever... so if you printed both of them on the same less-than-huge size, having those extra pixels = it's gonna look cleaner at that size (since the noisy pixels are smaller) and sharper too.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

@CreeDo nothing to do with Sony, but i just moved from a 6D classic to a 5D4, i read everywhere the ISO performance is better. But I don't feel that way at all.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

@ jay jay02: Expect much more from future sensors, like very fast full electronic shutter, better object recognition, faster AF, insanely fast dual or multi exposure for expanded dynamic range, etc. and even better quantum effiency. The sensor is very much the camera nowadays. You are of cause free to stay with yesterday's technology and slamming mirrors.

Jun 28, 2018*permalink

Thematic

jay jay 02 - https://www.dxomark.com/sony-a9-sensor-review-game-changer/

If you personally can't notice a difference with newer sensors (any brand) that is YOUR issue, no one else's.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

jay jay02. Every sensor is a little different. Since the 5D IV has more exposure latitude you need to take advantage of that to see the lower noise. In other words, expose to the right to bring up the shadows then adjust the exposure down in RAW conversion.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

@Thematic DXO mark is.......? Ask Google. I'm talking about real life images not something from a lab. I mean what is it that really counts? For me it's the final results, something my eyes see not a chart in a magazine. And however good these photos look (I still don't like the colour) I'm pretty certain a good old 1DX or older Nikon could have produced images just as stellar. There is nothing groundbreaking about the latest sensors especially when it comes to colour reproduction.

Jun 30, 2018permalink

Jay jay maybe your monitor needs to be upgraded?

Jun 30, 2018permalink

32 inch 4K BenQ monitor. Should be showing enough detail ;-)

Jul 1, 2018permalink

Is it an IPS screen?

Jul 1, 2018permalink

https://www.flickr.com/photos/93738709@N06/42505002472/in/pool-1552080@N24/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93738709@N06/42373473361/in/pool-1552080@N24/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93738709@N06/42324265782/in/pool-1552080@N24/

Absolutely!

Jul 1, 2018permalink

OlHeath

I only shoot Sony, so not trolling, but that bokeh is some nasty stuff - has a taut, distorted, pained feel. Subjective, of course, but to my eyes I am a little surprised, to say the least, at the character of that bokeh on a 12k lens. Given how nice the bokeh is on many sony lenses (85GM, 35 1.4, etc) it's all the more odd.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

MILC man

supertelephoto lenses don't have the best bokeh to begin with.

matt granger liked the bokeh on this lens, he compared it to both the canon 400/2.8 and the Nikon 400/2.8:
"The new 400mm from Sony is damn impressive. Looking at the images on my editing machine - it is crazy sharp, and the bokeh is as nice or better than the Nikon and Canon. It also has far less vignetting, and is lighter, faster to focus, and the added function buttons are really handy."
http://mattgranger.com/sony400

Jun 28, 2018permalink

MILC man

examples of questionable Nikon 400/2.8 bokeh:

Jun 28, 2018permalink

CreeDo

I think the slight swirl effect and low contrast makes the background look a little unnatural, almost fake... like the subjects are models standing in front of a bubble-shaped print of the background scenery. I like other lenses with visible swirl though for portraits, or foliage. So maybe it's just weird for a soccer game but nice for other settings.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

The Davinator

@CreeDo - In b&w, the slight swirl is even more pronounced. The nervousness in complex backgrounds appears to be a problem. Comparing to ther lenses is irrelevant...it appears here, and that is what is important. Just because one finds ugly bokeh on a Nikon or Canon or Pentax lens, does not make the Sony any better....it still is poor.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

fjbyrne

@The Davinator
The comparison to Canon and Nikon is completely relevant since that is the competition for this lens. It also suggest that this type of bokeh is a normal byproduct of this focal length and aperture.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

Eric Hensel

The shots I see with 'questionable' bokeh, are all from nearly identical viewpoints and distances. I'd like to see more varied samples before making that call.

Jul 2, 2018*permalink

LadislavCZ

Great lens and Sony is moving forward quickly.

However I have issue with this gallery and its not the first time. The person taking those picture obviously has not much experience about sport photography. How someone could go and take photo with shutter speed like 1/1250 for such a quick action. 2500 is minimum for most moving shots at fotbal and much higher shutter speed is preferable to freeze action and have tack sharp photos.

This is not the first time I see the gallery is taken by someone who don`t have much experience in specialized type of photography and the results are very media core or even worse. The same happend testing Nikon new lens at the fotbal as well, the gallery was really bad.

Is that problem for such a big website having Amazon behind backs to hire someone who can take appropriate pictures to show full potential. I am really disappointed. Thee past great experience with DPreview was different and better. In past there was attention to the details and its gone!

Jun 28, 2018permalink

So you're upset the photographer didn't use 1/2500? You're saying pro sports shooters all use shutter speeds equal to or greater than that? Fast shutter speeds are good but not always possible even for a 2.8 lens in a dark end of a stadium.

BTW, what is 'fotbal' and what is 'media core'?

Jun 29, 2018permalink

AZheaven

This should put to rest any issue regarding Sony not having a long lens. Well...should.. I saw the videos from Fro Knows (great explanation of the innards) and Tony Northrup. Those shots they took are sharp, and even with the 2X's teleconverter you are at 800mm and f5.6. Tony said next up was to see how the A9 does with this lens on wildlife.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Dude with a camera

@keeponkeepingon
Yeah, I know its a small sample size, but I have watched just about every game, and when the video zooms in close enough, I don't think I have seen a Sony cam yet (unfortunately I look for such things). Again small sample, but you have to love what Sony is doing. I would be interested over the next few years and upcoming tournaments how Sony cams will be represented and the adoption by sports photogs.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Not many.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

keeponkeepingon

Every time they show photographers at the FIFA World Cup I keep on trying to spot a Sony but so far only canikon.

I even googled but just came up with the pro sony video cameras to film the event.

Has anyone had better luck?

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Of course, what do you expect? This lens is not on the market, yet.

If CanNikon do not answer quickly to Sony's A9+FE400GM, the next World Cup will look different... Sony is really taking "mirrorless" seriously.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Thematic

Only a coward makes a puchasing decision based what another pro might use at a sporting event.

Pros don't care what other pros use - they are too busy making money.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

keeponkeepingon

Thematic

I asked a simple question why would you even bother to write such a non-answer.

Which pro sony photographers are too busy making money at the World Cup?

Thanks

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Dude with a camera

@keeponkeepingon
See my post in response your post above. Sorry I suck at posting and somehow I tried to respond but it ended up a new post.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Avatar480234

@keep

Obviously, this is a loaded/ sarcastic question.
You know very well the answer to this.

But... everybody is now aware that upstart Sony will soon ruffle not a few feathers in this *tiny* number of working pro photographers (wedding togs far outnumber this group.... and Sony is making huge inroads here).

Ted of The Art of Photography made a bold prediction that this lens could be a future *World Cup lens* stalwart. Let us see.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

ysengrain

What is more impressive ? The lens ? the camera ? both ? the photographer

Jun 28, 2018permalink

None of the above.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

The gear is impressive. Since this is about the lens. it is most impressive.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

thenoilif

I like how DPR uses people who may be similar in skill to the people who read this forum to take their sample galleries. These pics are probably an accurate representation of what an enthusiast photographer may achieve using this same gear for this particular situation.

Now, how many enthusiasts would be able to get away with bringing said gear into an event like this is another story.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

What else should they do? They are a team of photography journalists and not a bunch of professional photographers.
Hiring a sports-pro is too expensive for this preview, I guess.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Pro sports shooters would have the advantage of experience shooting their chosen sports specialties. Most of them have little to no interest reviewing a lens for DPR as to them its simply a tool. They would have to see a distinct advantage moving over to Sony ML. For golf, an electronic silent shutter is a great feature. One only gets paid for what one produces on the sidelines during the game. One cannot take chances and so a new platform would require an implementation phase using both until it has been proven out.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

Photoman

Love those Sony colours!

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Yeah, they're great, if you're into cartoons.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Sony's color science is different as Canon's is different as Nikon's is different.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

@riknash, yes, the colors are different, excellent observation.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

Photoman

Got to love feedback from Nik/Can lovers!

Jul 4, 2018permalink

Wow, noisy, horrendous colors, terrible bokeh quality, an all around big fat dump of a lens and camera... If this is the best Sony has to offer then they will soon exit the camera business with their tail between their legs.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Given your multiple comments badmouthing the lens, are you paid to do this or are you naturally this way?

Jun 29, 2018permalink

I'm not bad mouthing just the lens. I think the camera is doing the lens a disservice. Regardless, this kit costs 16 thousand dollars, I think it's fair to expect better results from a company claiming to turn the world on end with their revolutionary camera technology.

Jun 29, 2018*permalink

@Riknash...well there are many positive comments and reviews where they are paid either directly or indirectly. I'm sure some reviewers are scared to say anything overly negative for fear of retribution.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

Reading all your negative comments about this hands-on review of Sony's 400/2.8, I get the distinct impression you'd say negative comments about anything Sony, just because. Having tried the lens using an a9, in my opinion that combination would be very useful and could stand up to most of the demands of either Nikon or Canon. I say most only because the Sony ML has some advantages as so too does DSLR technology in certain situations. Certain difficult AF scenarios may work better on one technology versus the other. Color science is a bit different but really not worth losing sleep over.Why all the negativity?

Jul 25, 2018permalink

Reading all your negative comments about this hands-on review of Sony's 400/2.8, I get the distinct impression you'd say negative comments about anything Sony, just because. Why all the negative comments?

Jul 25, 2018permalink

sosh

Is it just my eyes or bg oof rendering is really weird?

Jun 28, 2018permalink

It caught me eye first and foremost.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

mart1234

I noticed it just be looking at the smallest thumbnail.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

LamePhotog

Most posts made here are from people who can't afford this lens, or the A9, or have the press credentials to take full advantage of on field access. The poo poo'ed it because they are jealous. I'm on the other hand can be more objective. I was at that game, I took my Olympus EP1 and kit lens, was seating in the upper deck to slum with the masses. I took a few casual snaps of the game and sold them for 50K. You see, I don't need any of the gear or special access because I'm such a great artiste. So endeth my posting boasting (po'boasting)

Jun 28, 2018permalink

You're so right. Who needs 20 fps or 400 mm: untalented non-pros photographers.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

LamePhotog

@surlezi, 400mm are for fake sports photog

Jun 29, 2018permalink

trungtran

For such a fast camera, where are the money shots?

Shots on goal, players kicking the actual ball.

I'm no pro, but these photos don't really do the combo justice.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

LamePhotog

If you have $50k, I'll sell you my pics of that game.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Relaxed

I bought my a9 for this and the 500/4. I’m still waiting on some credible shots, these don’t justify jumping over from Canon.

I have no idea why people have issues with this lens’s Bokeh. Looks fine to me.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

@trungtran: Where is your common sense?
This is a quick test of the equipment, not a reportage on the football game.
The people who took the pics are staff members of dpreview and not professional sports photographers.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

trungtran

@Michael_13
A quick test? A football match goes for 2 hours. There are set plays, free kicks, corner kicks. 20FPS, lens optimised for tracking and speed and you can't take a picture of someone kicking the ball.

It's called football. People actually kick the ball in this sport.

I stand by my comment that the pictures does not do the combo justice. Maybe the first pic would make the cut, that's about it.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

kayphoto

DP likes "soccer" now. It kinda late in the game. Just kidding ok

Jun 28, 2018permalink

It's fútbol. Get it right. :-)

Jun 28, 2018permalink

kayphoto

Nope its soccer!

Jun 28, 2018permalink

It's kickball.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

kayphoto

It's nohandball!

Jun 29, 2018permalink

Andrei C

I always wondered why "American" football is called "football" when you play the game with your hands ? :))

Jun 29, 2018permalink

whakapu

Yes, it blows out the backgrounds (and for sports the quality of bokeh matters not) but I can't say I'm impressed at all with how subjects are rendered. If shallow DOF is the only trick these lenses have they're at the mercy of the next generation of software smart selection tool.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

5x faster focus speed which you cant fix in photoshop. if this lens is sharp as nikon and canons version this is a leap forward.

i always say that you have photographers and you have photoshoppers.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

tassienick

I'm curious why you think the quality of bokeh doesn't matter for sports?

Sports (especially in stadiums) often have very distracting backgrounds (such as tens of thousands of fans wearing the same colours as the players). I would think in such a context the ability to effectively blur the background with high quality bokeh (ie. not 'busy') would be very important...

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Relaxed

Most disturbing backgrounds are of indoor sports, but then your subject is closer anyway. Basketball for example, is rarely shot with anything longer than a 300.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

tassienick

@Relaxed - any stadium sport, indoor or outdoor, is going to have distracting backgrounds.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Relaxed

Umm, no. Even when you have unlimited DOF, that claim doesn’t hold water.

Basketball is shot very regularly with 16-35/2.8. I don’t think they worry much about subject isolation.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

whakapu

Tassienick. The amount of blur is important but not the "quality" of bokeh as photographers discuss it. Most of the time when reviewers discuss the quality of bokeh I struggle to see what they're basing that on (unless it's a mirror lens). If the subject is isolated in sports that's enough. If you close your eyes and try to remember some of your all-time favourite sporting images I doubt if you'll remember whether the bokeh was creamy, swirly, smoothly transitioned, busy, whether there was a smooth background busily blurred or a busy background smoothly blurred.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

tassienick

No, I don't remember the bokeh from my favourite sporting images, but in this context that's kind of the point. Good bokeh is not distracting and therefore not noticed/remembered - you remember the subject and the background is dismissed. Poor bokeh (with a busy background) draws the eye and distracts from the subject.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

i guess thats the point a bit. you either shoot the player in the context of the game, or you shoot the player. is the pic about the gameplay or is it about that player.

Jul 1, 2018permalink

whakapu

Rob40. That's right. It's not portraiture. You seldom want just one player. You want the player with the ball and the chasing tackler. If both of those are going to be recognisable then that depth of field will reveal some background unless you're shooting from close to the action. That's why the most valuable bit of kit a pro sports photog has, the thing that separates them from the amateur in the stand, is the sideline pass.

Jul 1, 2018permalink

Boy, those refs really get up all over your face just to red card you!

Jun 27, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

The colors are just atrocious... People are either yellow or red...

Jun 27, 2018permalink

It's Sony. That's normal.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

Sorry but ain't has better skintones than Canon or Nikon.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

RootX

Ken Rockwell approves the photos 👀

Jun 28, 2018permalink

This grass appears... guess what...green ! Pathetic ! Why not blue sky ?!

Jun 28, 2018*permalink

jwasturias

And so are the cards.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

so did i understand that 400mm can become a 800mm with teleconverter and then you switch to crop mode to get even further reach ? so from f2.8 400mm to f5.6 1200mm ?

Jun 27, 2018permalink

dkyl

Not quite. You loose 2 stops with the TC 2X so you’re at f5.6 at 800mm already. Then if you crop again, you stay at f5.6 but using less sensor real estate so equivalent f-stop falls again depending on how much you crop. At 1200mm FOV you’re at a bit over f8 equiv.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

@dkyl that the point i dont get. with my nikon it works that way but what i understood from the sony camera's is that you would would go in another factor of 1.5. might as wel stick to my nikon D850 with a long tele and just crop. the reall estate is large enough to crop and stil be able to have enough to print large prints.

Jul 1, 2018permalink

dkyl

@Rob40:
No it’s the same. Cropping is cropping and doesn’t change regardless of brands. So with TC2, you’re cropping from 800mm f5.6.
If you use a 1.5X crop (which is the APS-C crop) then you arrive at 1200mm f8.4 equivalent. But remember this is the equivalent fov and aperture. Actual remains at 800mm f5.6.
So if you need to crop, starting with a larger MP has advantages. Basically you have higher pixel density.
It’s the same as sticking the 400mm f2.8 + TC2 on an APS-C camera instead of cropping 1.5X from FF.

Jul 1, 2018permalink

@dykl thanks, that is what i thought but it helps when someone else confirms. i got confused.

Jul 3, 2018permalink

Saramarisu

Remember the days dpreview called it football ;-)

Jun 27, 2018permalink

No.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

It still is football.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Sessility

It should never be called football, that's too ambiguous, there are half a dozen of codes of what some might call "football". Much better to call it by its specific term ;-)

Jun 28, 2018permalink

They should change the name to No-Hands ball.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

LandonT87

Gotta say.. I really like the bokeh. Looks like not everyone is a fan of it. Also really like the colours. Though I'll never own this lens so maybe it doesn't matter.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

ProfHankD

This is a lens made for shooting sports with the A9. I don't do that... which is good, because I also don't want to spend $12K on this lens. That said, I don't think it's easy to compete with this performance for sports shooting -- the speed, weight, balance, etc. are what this is tuned for. I think the IQ compares very well to the $10K Canon 400mm f/2.8 L II, including in bokeh quality (nicely diffuse edges in most cases compared with the Canon).

I don't get why stuff here was shot at such high ISOs? With camera shake taken care of and f/2.8, I'd expect shutter speeds to be high enough with ISO 400 or lower. Was lighting really that dim? Ye olde "sunny 16" rule would say ISO 400 == 1/12800s at f/2.8.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

Huh??? first shot ISO1000 1/2000 to freeze action. That's not dim, that is great lighting for sports. You could get bare minimum of 1/1000 and ISO500 but I would probably make the same choice. Camera shake is irrelevant at those shutter speeds and f2.8 is inconsequential.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

ProfHankD

What little sports shooting I did professionally (way back in the late 1970s), the idea usually wasn't to freeze everything, but to allow a little motion blur to show in such shots (e.g., feet, hands, and maybe the background as you tracked the athlete). Shutter speeds I picked were usually between 1/125s and 1/500s and ISO around 400 with my relatively very slow lenses, although my XK could do 1/2000s and I wasn't afraid to push-process film to 1600+ if truly necessary, but almost never did for sports -- sports lighting is usually quite bright and outdoors usually is too.

These shots look lifeless to me thanks to insanely high shutter speed choices. For example, the 7th shot here was at ISO 1000, f/3.2, 1/2500s. Was the subject even moving at all?

Jun 27, 2018*permalink

There is not one shooter I know that would go under 1/1000...even when faced with ISO up to 12,800. Sports at night under lights will be ISO 1600-6400 with a f2.8 or f4 lens. I'm sure the photog was using the same action settings when taking the non-moving subject.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

ProfHankD

scokill: Kids today are so spoiled. ;-) You know, I was talking about shooting at those lower shutter speeds while MANUALLY FOCUSING and following the action with a lens that HAD NO STABILIZATION -- and ISO 12,800 wasn't even a push-processing option with film in the 1970s. Sports photography used to really challenge the skill of the photographer (and my skills were barely up to the challenge), but now I'm hearing it's largely point and burst-shoot with shutter speeds that are fast enough to freeze anything. Sort-of takes the art out of sports photography, doesn't it? Like I said to begin with, I don't do sports photography any more....

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Bill Ferris

Just for context, shooting college football at the indoor venue where I live, my settings are 1/1000, f/2.8 and ISO 6400. And I often push another 1/3-stop in post. I can only fantasize about using less than ISO 2000 at night at 1/1000.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

5DMK3

OMG 12K with that nasty swirly bokeh! It has a strong character for sure. So everyone will know what glass made that image.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

Thematic

Its only the dpreview sample. Watch the Tony and Chel youtube videos and those of other bloggers - no issues with Bokeh. Looks good.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

5DMK3

«Tony and Chel youtube» lol looks more like a Sony ad than anything else. 20 vs 10 fps and lighter than Canon and Nikon. How does that even compare to dpreview sample images?

Why not get a Olympus 300mm f2.8 then, cost 1/3 of the price with way more range (600mm), 60 fps with Oly mkIi, much lighter and smaller than Canon and Nikon.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

@ 5DMK3: Why not go for a superzoom camera with 1" sensor …

Jun 27, 2018permalink

@Magnar

Cause you can crop so much and iPhone pics are so good now !

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Probably already been posted, but the bokeh is horribly harsh.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

Bokeh issues aside, I am quite impressed by the seemingly high number of keepers for a non pro sports photographer. Must be some awesome af going on there . A bit disappointed that the weight savings seem to partially be due to the lens really being 388 f2.88 or something

Jun 27, 2018permalink

cosmicnode

How do you know, how many keepers there were without seeing all the shots taken.

Jul 1, 2018permalink

Regardless of how many photos shot, the match is till 90 minutes ++

Jul 1, 2018permalink

cosmicnode

Maybe so but there are only 2 keepers in the whole match,

Jul 1, 2018permalink

I guess you are a more discerning aficionado than me

Jul 1, 2018permalink

cosmicnode

Think about it! 2 keepers.......

Jul 1, 2018permalink

Lol

Jul 1, 2018permalink

cSalmon

These f2.8 lenses may be expensive but that doesn't buy you great images. And yes I do love playing soccer/football, but my gawd are soccer pics boring. Just not my cup of tea I guess.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

txsizzler

Its good to see Sony come out with a long telephoto at f/2.8, not to mention being relatively lightweight for the class.

However, that swirly bokeh... on sports/action photos.. not good. Makes the photo look distorted, and even a bit headache inducing. The bokeh, really nervous looking. For $12k, I would expect alot better than this. Just looking through the Canon sample soccer images with the 400mm f/2.8 L (Google it), I find that lens to be far, far better in these terms, not to mention being $2k cheaper.

Still though, I am glad to see Sony still trying to get stuff out there for their pro grade FE bodies. I just hope future endeavors address these issues.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

Becksvart

I love a little swirly bokeh! In a pro sports lens no less..have little experience with those though so maybe competitors have it too. This IS character, the good kind! For the dark side of the force, please see the Voigtlander "Classic" E 35 1,4; looking at its bokeh actually hurts.

Funny how some here say it's boring, some busy, some so-so. This is going to be a unique lens that will produce some knockout shots! I'm usually not this preppy but all you whiners make me smile!

Jun 27, 2018permalink

cricnours

It's me or bokeh is... mmm... well... so-so

Jun 27, 2018permalink

cricnours

Agh!, sorry - I did not notice previous comments

Jun 27, 2018permalink

Could we get some non-lossy raws, or not 12 bit raws, but full 14 bit raws? Please.

14 bit raws from the Sony A9 body should be about 46MB per file.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

Where do you need these extra bits for sports/Wildlife/action photography? For sure NOT when shooting at ISO 640 or higher!

Jun 27, 2018*permalink

NemanRa

hi HowaboutRAW

how do you open the raw files from α9? what software do you use? especially for the new cameras, it is hard to find raw support...
for sony files, i would recommend the capture one - it is free for sony and usually get the most from S files...

regards

Jun 27, 2018permalink

Magnar W:

For colour, it could be important for sports, but most certainly is important for wildlife.

Look, it's not like I want every file to be 14 bit non-lossy raws, just some. And I'm perfectly happy to look at the compressed raws or 12 bit files too.

Yes, one of the signs of very good optical quality is rendering colour subltey well. Or with black and white; it's the look of the light. It is NOT the same as "microcontrast".

Jun 27, 2018*permalink

NemanRa:

Usually I turn the raws, from say for example the Sony A9, into DNGs with Adobe DNG Converter (10.4 is the lastest release). Then I extract those DNGs with ACR 9.1 runnning in PhotoShop CS6.

Some times I use/try RawTherapee or Darktable.

There's also Sony's IDC 4 (that's Image Data Converter). It's years old and not very good, but free. You'll have to do a general websearch to find it, you'll never find it on the Sony website, unless something has changed, since I last looked at that mess.

CaptureOne (limited to say the Sony A7III) is only "free" if you own the Sony A7III--not if you're just trying the camera, renting it, or simply downloading raws say for example the A9 files here.

Jun 27, 2018*permalink

@ HowaboutRAW: Look at dynamic range graphs - there is not enough data to fill a 12 bit container when using ISO 640. For lower ISO settings, you need to push the shadows a lot to see any difference, which is pretty much the same as using higher ISO settings. So there is not much need for more than 12 bit unless you are shooting scenes with extreme dynamic range.

Then look at what is important for sports/action/wildlife photos, the kind of photography one do with such lenses. No one will be able to spot the difference between 12 and 14 bit capture.

Jun 27, 2018*permalink

Magar:

I'm not interested in looking at graphs and charts, or "containers" telling me what I can and can't see. I want the files. The 14 bit files.

Given a very good lens, and reasonably low ISOs, it is very easy to see the difference between 12 bit file and a 14 bit file. That's even on just a decent 8 bit display.

Look, you don't care about colour, that's fine; the line about having to push shadows confirms this point. But don't tell me what to concern myselt with regards say shooting wildlife.

And again, it's not as if I'm asking that DPR only post non-lossy 14 bit raws shot with this lens/body combination.

"No one will be able to spot the difference between 12 and 14 bit capture."

Thanks for the defense of crappy MP3 sound quality. Yeah.

Jun 27, 2018*permalink

@ HowaboutRAW:

Then just take a few test shots and compare! Fine if you post the results too! The A9, A7rIII and A7III offer 14 bit mode, and 12 bit when shooting high speed sequences.

I bet you can't tell the difference from looking at action photos, and hardly when looking at photos showing high dynamic range scenes.

That said: We can't discuss quality when you are not interested in looking at graphs and facts about bit depth and stored data. I am not interested about how people feel about 14 versus 12 bit files.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

Magnar:

"Then just take a few test shots and compare!"

Right, because one can commonly find this lens on display for trial. Sarcasm.

"I bet you can't tell the difference from looking at action photos,"

See you've added the a qualifier "action" there. I didn't say any thing about that.

"That said: We can't discuss quality when you are not interested in looking at graphs and facts about bit depth and stored data. "

That just says you know how to read scores and measure the exterior of cans.

"I am not interested about how people feel about 14 versus 12 bit files."

Of course you're not, since you "know" so much--having read a score or three.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

photomedium

Magnar W.
another priceless exchange with the 'rain man'. Do yourself a favor and don't expect him to get what you are saying...LOL

Jun 28, 2018permalink

photomedium:

"Magnar W.
another priceless exchange with the 'rain man'. Do yourself a favor and don't expect him to get what you are saying...LOL"

I'll spell it out for you since you didn't follow a fairly obvious point.

One: The contents of a can, or box, or container, can't be determined from taking the outer dimensions.

Two: Basically all who say "you can't possibly see" or "you can't possibly taste a difference because the can (container) holds far more than you can possibly perceive" are going by what the exterior measurements of the can say it should do or be.

Right: LOL, I'm reading yet more defense of scores in place of use, or in my analogy not opening the can to see what's possible with the contents.

Please post more cluelessness like that from Magnar. Again: MP3 files really don't sound very good.

Jun 28, 2018*permalink

@ HowaboutRAW: How much image data is left in the final image file?

Do the real world test (easy, can be done with any lens), and post the results with samples and your analysis. Then we can discuss.

MP3? Is this an image file format? LOL!

Jun 28, 2018*permalink

Magnar W:

"MP3? Is this an image file format? LOL!"

Is that a supposed to be a joke? Are you that computer illiterate?

"Do the real world test (easy, can be done with any lens), and post the results with samples and your analysis. Then we can discuss."

Okay, send me this 400mm FE lens and an A9 or A7III.
Or how about you do it yourself, or look for raws shot at the different bit depths?

Jun 28, 2018permalink

@ HowaboutRAW: Looks like you did not pass the "mp3-test" … :-)

Use your Sony camera and ANY lens. A 14 versus 12 bit test is lens-independ. I have already done this with some Sony cameras.

Jun 28, 2018*permalink

Magnar W:

And it's pretty easy to the tell the difference between 14 and 12 bit files. Laughable that you say the "test" is lens independent.

True if you use a crap lens with both file types, you'll not see a difference, but you missed the MP3 analogy badly, so I'd expect such gaming for an outcome from you.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

photomedium

HAR
One: The contents of a can, or box, or container, can't be determined from taking the outer dimensions.

LOL...you have made a lot of 'square peg in round hole' arguments through the years but even you should appreciate that whatever the contents are they cannot be bigger than the box.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

photomedium:

You foolishly related the size of the box to bit depth, not something I did.

The box, can really, can contain water, or say petrol, that latter sure has a great deal more potential energy to release--or less dramatically, water and gasoline have vastly different chemical properties.

So indeed, even with your limited understanding of bigness, a can of X size can produce vastly different results depending on contents.

I find it striking this reaction from your ilk to my simple request for 14 bit raws from a camera that shoots 14 bit raws. You do know that 14 bit is the common bit depth capacity of APSC and FF, and many medium format, cameras?

Go right ahead like Magnar with your defense of the sound quality of MP3 files.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

FLruckas

Mag....
Howie doesn't have a Sony camera....
Just some rechargeable batteries....
And a hyperactive possessed keyboard....
:=)

Jun 29, 2018*permalink

FLruckas:

Wow, you stalked me over here too. Creepy. Well, creepier.

Jun 29, 2018*permalink

@ HowaboutRAW: Where have I stated anything about MP3 file quality, other than when joking with you? I find many of your statements a bit hard to take seriously as general facts. :-)

The Next thing coming up in this discussion would be 12 bit vs 14 bit MP3 files, or what! LOL!

Jun 29, 2018*permalink

FLruckas

Mag...
Howie is into drama and likes to fight with people....
Some have suggested aspergers….
So this is what you're dealing with...
He should be banned....

Jun 29, 2018permalink

FLruckas:

"Howie is into drama and likes to fight with people....
Some have suggested aspergers….
So this is what you're dealing with...
He should be banned...."

Right, because I asked for 14 bit raws, and pointed out that MP3s (which do have a bit depth) don't sound real great [no matter the DAC]. Sarcasm.

Please post more ugliness. It so doesn't help you.

Jun 29, 2018permalink

@ FLruckas: I have noticed that HowaboutRAW can be intense. That said, I don't think we should "diagnose" each other. Better use arguments, sometimes humor, and sometimes even irony and sarcasm without meing too mean. At all, it's up to me when I want to end a discussion. ;-)

Jun 29, 2018permalink

Aleks7

boring bokeh, looks quite bad for 400mm 2.8, even the colors & contrast are weird
I'd say the 200-400 f4 can do at least comparable job

Jun 27, 2018permalink

Max Thunder

Are you kidding?

Jun 27, 2018permalink

Trolls not kidding. Trolls serious.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

@Aleks7: I don't think a pro wants to lose one f-stop when shooting at 1/1000th s.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Glina

Useless bokeh :(

Jun 27, 2018permalink

G1Houston

Busy and ugly bokeh.

Jun 27, 2018permalink

Stanchung

On the fence with this. Looks ok with the subjects closer.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

Not worse than Canon/Nikon, imo. Backgrounds in a stadium are difficult for all lenses.

Jun 28, 2018permalink

At first I had a bad reaction to it, I think it's partly the washed out colors from the camera. Swirly bokeh is cool when the subject is in the center of the frame IMO.

Jun 29, 2018permalink