Sony 600mm f4 vs Sony 200-600mm | Is it ACTUALLY Worth $10,000 MORE???
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- NEW FroPack 1 Lightroom Presets froknowsphoto.... (40% off)
After reviewing both the $13,000 Sony 600mm f4 and the $2,000 Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 I am here to tell you which one I think is better? I think the results will surprise you.
Download Sample RAW files from both of these lenses froknowsphoto....
Order the Sony 600mm f4 bit.ly/2NlG7Wg (Adorama)
Order the Sony 200-600mm bit.ly/2JFOSFk (Adorama)
Download MyGearVault mygearvault.co...
Get a FREE Guide To Capturing Motion In Low Light Situations froknowsphoto.... (look for the orange box)
____________________________________________________________________
Gear I USE
I SHOOT RAW Camera Bag bit.ly/2scQRt7
I SHOOT RAW T-Shirts bit.ly/2vG2igB
Nikon D5 bit.ly/2OBrXNa
Nikon Z7 bit.ly/2FfRPMY
Nikon Z6 bit.ly/2FcKsWJ
Nikon D850 bit.ly/2n54Xto
The Microphone I use for Vlogging bit.ly/2LWGRPq
Nikon 70-200 2.8 bit.ly/2OBsjmY
Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR bit.ly/2LLHdsQ
Nikon 14-24 2.8 bit.ly/2LK1NtU
Nikon 105 F1.4 bit.ly/2vttwUq
Sony a7 III bit.ly/2n3HaK8
My Rolling Bag Of Choice For Flying bit.ly/2LNsHRK
Follow me
►TH-cam: bit.ly/frotube
►Facebook: / froknowsphoto
►Instagram: / jaredpolin
►Twitter: / froknowsphoto
USE CODE FRO at squarespace.com... to get your 14 day FREE Trial.
Please help us continue to make FREE content
by purchasing one or all of the FroKnowsPhoto
Educational guides. To check out previews of
each guide click here.
►froknowsphoto.c...
#FroKnowsPhoto #Sony #VS
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.910 | 22 ก.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4TR3MVpOiw8/mqdefault.jpg)
That 600mm looks like it would actually blast off into space if you lit a fuse at the end of it.
I got my Sony 200-600 this week. It is a thing of beauty, the bargain of the century, no brainier...if you like photographing wildlife get one!!
18 months ago, this video was the trigger point for a decision that I have been very happy with. Am re-visiting to say THANK YOU! After shooting professionally with my Sony A-mount system for many, many, years, a shoulder injury (coupled with age!) made using my 13+ pound Minolta 600/4 & Sony a99ii far too painful. With the end of the Sony A-mount apparent in fall 2020 (the 4-yr cycle of flagship body upgrades was ended with introduction of the LA-EA5, A- to E-mount adapter), and semi-retirement looming, it became decision time. No longer able to use the heavy old Minolta prime (without paying for it with days of shoulder pain), this video convinced me to give the (nearly 9 pounds lighter!) 200-600 a try, so I coupled it with an a7Riv and have never looked back. Photo decisions are filled with trade-offs & compromises, and trading off the old heavy 600/4 for the 200-600 was a difficult one to arrive at. I see frequent references to how "heavy" the 200-600 is, but from my experience it is incredibly light for what it brings to the table. I'm very happy to say it brought new life back to my wildlife photography! Again, thank you for the comparison. Without this video, and with a $13k prime being an option that was off the table at this stage of life, I never would have imagined the viability of using this lens instead.
We have the same camera/lens setup :) I do wildlife photography, but just for myself not professionally. Can’t justify spending 13k on a hobby at 25 years of age. But what I have works great for me.
He's allowed to show off those guns because he has probably worked hard to get them
Jeez! I thought you were joining in on the NASA 50 year Moon landing aniversary at first sight... then I realised that wasn't a 1/4 scale model Saturn V rocket :-D
11:16 Add a chest fly test for the big, tripod mount equipped lens.
Great review! My recommendation
Not pro: 200-600
Pro: buy both
Well, Sony now has the very best long zoom lens in the world. They have come a very long way, in a very short time.
I would love to see these on an a6500 or a6400 and compare that to using the 1.4x teleconverter to get the reach.
the 600 F/4 has better micro-contrast around the point of focus (on the exact plane of focus, they are similar).
Generally, I like this review. Manufacturers are putting out spectacularly good optical values these days. A lot of the old rules about prime versus zoom are being rendered moot. If the experience with the 400mm f/2.8 is any guide, you won't be able to accept delivery for the 600mm f/4 until after the Olympics unless you have connections. Don't rule out the Sony 100-400mm f/5.6-6.3 either. For real wildlife, I'll still take a prime. Zoos and sports stadia are generally well lit and arranged so that the viewers can see the displays. In the wild, the lighting is often bad and the animals are trying to avoid being seen. Low flare and high light-gathering ability still count for a lot.
The 600mm is so light! While the 200mm 2.8 is so freaking heavy. Also the best part was I got a(X20 A9) photo of Lok Cheung today at Lens library
You know what they say: "Bokeh don't come for free"
Please can you shoot some indoor portraits with those two? I think they are must-have for not invited wedding photographer :P
how do they focus on our cheapo a7r ii? The 6.3 one ofcourse...
I would have liked to see the difference in low light settings.
Sometimes you have to use the image stabilization (whether lens or in body) to cheat the reciprocal rule. It's not always a must.
Not sure what changed but this probably the sharpest video of yours I've seen. Looks great!
You do the best lens reviews.
This feels like this is the third time I've seen the same video, starting with you walking into a zoo and also featuring the exact same shots?
I think this is the last chapter.
Seriously, with the comparison of the stadium seats and the bokeh
Its about clicks with this guy, his heart left photography a long time ago.
Some lucky Germans are already receiving their 200-600mm lenses they pre-ordered.
Camera Ray I am Indian and I got one as early as 24th of July this year.
Great video!! That 200-600mm look insane!!
I think I’m going to get the sigma adapter and a canon 150-600 for my sony a7iii as a budget/starter telephoto. Hopefully it keeps me satisfied while I save for GM glass
I want a 600mm 1.2
Please do me a favor to compare btween Canon 600mm f4 iii vs Sony 600mm f4
Really nice lenses. Sony doing some things right here.
After eight minutes at 8:49 the players are clearly different places on the field
Glad someone else spotted that. Don't know by how much but a good 7-8 m by the look of it. Certainly not a fair test.
You keep saying "the real world" and referring to the Zoo... I know it's not really your thing, but I would really love to see some actual real-world photography... like, actual wildlife... without fences...
ALSO: Would you consider talking about the Nikon P900? For a couple hundred bucks used, this slightly older unit seems like an ideal P&S camera to get your feet wet, especially for wildlife and landscapes.
Actually going to the zoo is a great way for beginners to get familiar with photographing wildlife. I recommend it to a lot of my friends that are starting up. Not that different than going on safari where animals just sit there. Also bird shows (at the zoo) help too
Yes, a great camera to get your feet wet. However, a 100-400 lens with a full frame will take better shots at the same distance. I have the p1000 and use it occasionally because it is lighter (comparatively) than a real setup. However, you get what you pay for and the combination of a full frame and a good long lens is hard to beat.
The prime lens had better microcontrast . You can notice in the eagle image.
I shoot sports, a lot of it happens at night. (Football, baseball, soccer). I’ll always choose a lens with a larger aperture that allows in more light.
I always wonder when you show those professional tools in comparison, will it earn you money to justify, in this example, the 600 f4 over the 200-600? And of so, how long will it take to break even, if ever? As an amateur, I don't judge either way, it is really just curiosity.
Great review Jared huge help for me!!
Thanks for the test, very informative!
Listen here you big haired crazy fella! STOP UPLOADING THE SAME CONTENT! #stillloveya
Maybe he doesn't have anything else to show now?
He made three videos, one on the 600 F4, one on the 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 and one talking about the difference... So not the same no.
Jared, would the Sony 200-600mm be suitable for aviation photography?
Yes. I just used it yesterday on some inbounds at MIA. Depends how you do depth of field, if you're more comfortable with more landscapey shots the 6.3 is all good.
I shoot a lot of sports including Major League Soccer and NFL football. I typical arm myself with the 600mm GM F4 and the 100-400mm GM. It gives me complete coverage which I desire. It allows me not to miss much. With football I also carry a 24-70 F2.8
Hey Greg, I guess I am unique but find the 600 too long for soccer. I wish I kept my 400 2.8 which I traded for the 600.
Thanks a lot for such a great comparison!
Somehow.. I seems to have watch this video before.. is this a re upload?
The prime 600 look so much bigger than the 200-600.. It's just funny that it only weights less than 1 kg more.
Beautiful lenses nonetheless. Cant wait for 17th .. Sony big news.
1st video = 600f4, 2nd video = 200-600, 3rd video = comparison of those 2 lenses.
I love your presets, sandbox is my favorite
Sand lot.
Hello Jared. I'm just getting started with photography and I don't know much about it. I have the Sony 200-600mm and an a7III. I figured out how to work with manual focus and also how to zoom into 5.9 and 11.7. Nevertheless, when I go to push down the shutter, button the camera automatically goes back out to a zoom level of 1.0. I've tried working with quite a few settings in the camera's menu after reading about them. I'm going through the user guide that comes with the camera and also the longer online version. I've also held down the focus hold buttons on the telephoto lens. Nothing seems to work. What am I doing wrong? Alternatively, are my expectations out of alignment with reality?
I enjoy watching your videos, very informative and funny.
Great comparison video.
"Pro-ass bokeh" 😂
Fro, it might be kinda fun for you to get together with 2-3 other TH-camrs for a Summer Frotofest. Get together for a couple of days, someplace fun. Shoot a few videos for each other's channels. If you could gather Sony, Nikon, Canon and Fuji cameras with some consumer-priced glass - wide angles for landscapes, mid-range primes and zooms for portraits, longer glass for sports and wildlife - you'd come away with some bodacious shootouts.
can't stop watching this video...
"Pro...Ass...Bokeh"! 😭🤣 I love it! 😎
I think im just going to buy the 200-600. I'll save 10,000 and just subject mask in photoshop and gaussian blur the background when needed. The trade off in low light performance, noise from higher ISO, I think I can denoise my way to neutral territory on that as well. I think this buying decision comes down to, do you have the money to afford not having to obtain these results in post processing. A lot of professionals simply dont have the time to edit their photos like that, and thats where this lens can bring real value, granted, at a tremendous cost.
Looking at the pictures, except if you're a top professional, I don't really think you're losing much with the 200-600 but you gain a lot on flexibility (can take any 200-600 picture), whereas the 600 is very limiting... That's before you even compare prices! So, the 200-600 is pretty amazing!
Honestly unless you're already a pro, you're likely to get better pictures with the 200-600 anyway.
You probably want to be able to shoot moving targets. And locating a moving target at 600mm - or longer if using a TC - is not easy.
Even with the ability to back out to 200mm and then zoom back in, it's still not super-easy. But it's easier than trying to do it directly at 600mm.
So even if money was no object, I'd want to get to a point where I can easily locate subjects on the move at 600mm+ before considering springing for a 600 prime.
Also, part of it is probably trying to hand-hold. The 100-400 is pretty reasonable to hand-hold. The 200-600 can be hand held for shorter periods of time, though maybe it's not ideal. The 600 prime you're expected to only use on a tripod.
What about diffraction if you add a 2x teleconverter on a a7r4? Which is sharper?
How does the Sony 600 4.0 compare to 400 2.8 + 1.4 converter (600 4.0)
The 200-600 is gonna be my next lens
Just a minor point... Easier to comprehent:
"..one lense weighs 3kg (kilos if u wish) and the other 2kg..."
cause u're listing pounds and giving grams...
that would make the 600 weigh 107.2oz and the 200-600 74.4oz...
I could not access you 11 days video . What should I do
Side by side the images from the F4 lens obliterates the zoom images. That said, I suspect the zoom lens images would be good enough for 99% of the serious amateurs out there.
Obliterates? Lol
What are your thoughts in the
POLO sharpshot D7200 that you can buy on Wish? I would like to see you do a real world test on it befor I buy one for the kids to use and learn on
Ye but with denoise ai u can just blur the background
Hi Jared, great video but are your eyes ok? they seem to be flickering ++ in the horizontal plane. Bw Simon
wait..you're a doctor..Jared is wearing glasses..🤔..hmmm... yes, he does have an eye condition...are you new to the channel, because he has addressed it on more than one occasion..
This was a fantastic review. Although the price tag on that 600 is insane, that background blur is incomparable. I'd like to have that lens one day, but in the meantime, I will go with the 200-600.
Well, for $10 a month you can get lightroom+photoshop and simply just apply a slight blur to the background to the 200-600 😉
Why are no one do a comparison of 200-600mm VS 100-400mm+1.5 teleconverter?
Ashadi Budi. There is one, I've watched it: If you go to this You Tube channel you will find it:- Mark Galer's Alpha Creative Skills. Mark is a Sony Ambassador and his assessment is that the 200 - 600mm is sharper at 600 than the 100 - 400mm + SEL14TC at 560mm. I am part exchanging my 100 - 400mm + SEL20TC for a 200 - 600mm + SEL14TC. Even though the 100 - 400mm is a fantastic lens, I am confident the 200 - 600mm is a better option for me.
Jared polin Fro Knows photo!!!!!!!!!!
F6.3 will be unusable in the forest under worse light. With f4 it will be possible to take pictures. Here is the difference. In good light, the differences will be minimal.
I don't think it matters much nowadays what lens you have if its a G master its already a good quality lens, plus if its on the A9 that's the best sports camera on the market (swallowing my canon pride).
Any chance of getting a video on sharp pictures with the 200-600 with a7r3 , i am having trouble
Getting crisp clear pictures
Maybe the photographer? 🤔
samples are no longer up
Hi what lens are you using to record this video?
900$ is it worth it ?
Panasonic Lumix GX9 Hybrid Pack Silver + G Vario Lens 12-32 mm f / 3.5-5.6 Asph. Mega O.I.S. + G Vario lens 35-100 mm f / 4.0-5.6 Asph. Mega O.I.S. + Lens G 25 mm f / 1.7 Asph. + 16GB SD Memory Card
I'd love to see a video on the technicalities of why a lens is SO MUCH MORE expensive just for a few stops more of light. How can they justify the price tag??
When your job requires perfection, you dish out :P Durability, sharpness (although these seem very comparable tbh), DOF & bokeh from the F4, AF speed. Its a luxury lens for sure
"this is so cool I've got $15,000 in my hands"... [Proceeds to spit all over them] :-)
amazing lenses
i would more worried about the dusk mark or what ever mark is on sensor bro. or did not see it when shooting at the zoo bro. also can you add a teleconvert to the 200-600mm and give real world review.
Horizonically hahaha. Sorry Jared, made me laugh.
Could have been a better joke as the Gorillaz are a band as well love
Just buy a Nikon 200-500 and have done with it!
Downloaded the files and "played" with it... A9 4000 euro + 200-600 2000Euro = 6000 Euro, then i am sorry , this results when you look very close ? it is supurb in focus,A9 did great, but dull at RAW, pitchless, almost black and white, vasaline on the lens? I had to correct is strongly in contrast, grain effect due to the Adobe RAW converter .. Take the D500 + 200-500 for less money and you have more details at the end 24mp ff = 10 mp at dx where the D500 OR D850 at DX gives you 20, The 200-600 could be superb but in some RAW's at an other test a i noticed strong color fringing at edges where the Nikon 200-500 is clean...and living "things" look less plastic , The Sony tele's look a bit glassy, our group of wildlife shooters suspect the Sony long lenses, despite they are very sharp, that they have some dificultys to break throug the atmospere at a distance, where the Canon teles have their strength, and Nikon has catched up in the last series.
Basically if you want more DOF buy the 600/4, for everyone else, the 200-600 is more than good enough
less DOF
Pls, clean the a9 sensor
This is probably a dumb suggestion that I'll probably get sh*t on for, but I'd like to see a lens comparison of the Sony FE f2.8 100-400 vs. Sony FE f2.8 70-200 w/ x2 teleconverter. I'd like to see if it's actually worth buying the 100-400 rather than just buying the x2 teleconverter and slapping that on my 70-200.
You can a watch 70-200 with and without teleconverter and see how much it downgrades the sharpness.
So Basically you pay $11,000 MORE for some slightly better Bokeh? Totally not Worth it... especially since Photoshop has a "Depth Blur" plugin that adds background blur to the image in 1 easy step.
Thanks Jared. Very informative. Your subscriber here from Philippines.
8:36 is a bad example of the bokeh difference. On the left image, the player is much much further from the background so of course it'll have an even more out of focus look than the image on the right. No doubt, the background on f4 would still be more out of focus.
so whose going to shoot some lion chasing you in a terrain vehicle and the 600 & whose shooting talladega in the fall with the 200-600? ☺️
Shooting sports @600mmf4 your focus has to be bang right on the nail or you are wasting your time, something to think about!
Not something you need to worry much about with the a9 honestly.
@@froknowsphoto Thanks Jared, I must admit I'm reading and hearing good things about the A9. I must admit AF fine tuning lenses for my Nikon cameras is a serious pain in the posterior. Perhaps it's time for me to go mirrorless!
wow
I'd define the 600mm f/4 as "rich ass bokeh".
His right bicep is bigger than his left.😲
The 200-600 is actually somewhat underwhelming because Nikon has been selling the 200-500/5.6 for almost half the price of the Sony 200-600. If the Sony drops to f/6.3 after 300 mm does it really warrant 2x the price?
In my country the prices are 1400 euros for the nikon and 2000 for the sony. This is why i will probably go with sony.
@@malek2900 For the record I did end up purchasing the Sony anyway.
@@Enskakuski Thanks for the answer. And do you like it?
@@malek2900 Absolutely! Could be brighter though.
Yes it is if you are a pro
6.3 for wildlife us just a no for me, 5.6 is already a pain in the ass early in the morning or when it’s cloudy under the trees.
Hi comrad
11:13 just making a time stamp for myself.
Gift me the lens 600mm
Can't afford to buy
But crazy about photography
You can't compare this 2 🤷♂️
I wish I could afford anything worth that much - but if I did I would probably buy a car lol
The only reason I’d get the 600 is so I can put it on an a6400, hell maybe even a 5100. Just to see how funny and ridiculous it’d look, image a lens like that on a tiny body.
The 600mm f4, no. The 400mm f/2.8 yes worth it.
I got the 400 F2.8. For me really worth it for F2.8 to shoot wildlife in poor light, but F4 of the 600 is too near to F6.3 to be worth the huge price, at least for me. Plus it is difficult to lock onto a flying bird at 600mm. The 200-600 is great lens, except in poor light conditions when ISO can get too high and spoil the image if high shutter speed required for action
@@Jonathantuba yup
If you take a shot for the amount of time he talks about his guns throughout all his videos, would you be drunk or sober?
Sony made the Best tools for Pro Photographer.
Wxpected?
Not what I wxpected.
8:30 There you have it. Now we finally know the price of pro-ass-bokeh: 10.000 bucks ;-)
primes are cheaper they said... primes are smaller they said...