ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- I got to try the Sony FE200-400mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS Zoom lens. I went to a local high school soccer match and shot the second half of the JV game and the first half of the varsity game. I learned a lot in the process which I offer in the video. The vast majority of the video are showing the images that I made.
To my surprise, I got mine on July 31st. It' s fast and sharp on my A9 as well as on my A7R2. Great value for the money.
Excellent review. Got mine on pre-order and can't wait!
I've watched dozens of videos on this lens since before I bought mine and you just gave me the best advice on using it. Shoot a fast shutter speed. I thought that just shooting wide open would be enough, and I'm impressed with its resolution at night, however, I didn't realize how little noise it creates if I pushed the shutter speed even higher. I use an a7III which is excellent in low light situations. Can't wait to see what kind of pics I'll get in Shutter Priority mode.
Thanks for the review on this lens. Helped me make my choice to buy one :)
sweet!
Very impressive!
Thank you, very thorough review.
I wish someone would would do a review on this lens with A7iii
If u find one I want to see it
I assume these are unedited jpegs? I wonder how the lens performs on the A9ii or A1? Especially at night.
I've owned mine for a month and it works beautifully on my A9 (yet to try it on my A7III). I prefer it to my 100 - 400mm G Master, which I part exchanged for the new lens. It's brilliant for wildlife: I have Swallows flying just above the ground and Dragonflies in mid air. It handles really well and is easy to handhold for a decent amount of time. Zooming in and out is so fast. I have no regrets changing my 100 - 400mm G Master for this lens. Top job Sony.
Pete, you pointed out something that I didn't in my review. The focus throw on the zoom is really short. You can go from 200-600 in a snap! Love this for action sport photography :)
It's an excellent lens no doubt, but don't try to downplay the 100-400. 100mm end is more useful for landscape etc. And the close focus MFD on the 100-400 is in fact FAR Superior. Both are great lenses for different use cases
@@njrmax72. Where have I downplayed the 100 - 400? I have expressed a personal opinion. The 200 - 600mm suits me more than the 100 - 400mm. Having owned both. I am perfectly capable of assessing which I prefer and why.
@@klackon1 I now own both...and can tell you one is not superior over the other. They are quite different actually... Let's take the MFD which is Soo useful for close up work with 100400 . 200600 is no good there. My 200600 will be relegated to birding and distant wildlife...that's where it excels. It certainly seems many are quick to dismiss an older lense when a new one is released. These are very different lenses and I'm not sure they should be compared. I see totally different use cases for these 2 lenses. Of course most people cannot own both...so knowing what you need is important (ex focal length vs MFD, versatile range, weight savings etc).
If PMR says it, you can take it to the bank! Thanks for a another great video.
I have this lens and am being told "always have it on f/8 and always AUTO ISO. Thats the sharpest for this lens" ?
Is it because I was shooting birds in flight, that he said that ?
Im using a Sony a7IV.
I often struggle with "perfect sharp" photos. I know it can take amazing shots. Ive had some (not many) crispy sharp shots.
But for shooting deer, and other slow moving things, should I go to f5.6 and manual iso ?
This lens is, sadly, VERY sensitive to low light. Such a shame, cause I love this lens so much.
Thank you for a really good video btw :)
shoot at f/6.3 all the time, not F/8
@@PMRTV Seriously :O ?! Damn. Everyone (almost) in danish bird groups say f/8 is important if I want the bird to be sharp, in case focus hits the wing and not head.
This is VERY interesting - hearing this from at "real pro". Thank you - I will defo try your advice. And I will be more aware of keeping shutterspeed very high all the time If I can. Thank you for the reply - and your videos 👌
I just bought one of these to cover my community college's soccer program... haven't photographed any sports since I helped Tom Ewart way back in the day.
Tom was such a good guy.. I really miss seeing him when I shoot in AR :(
Your videos are amazing. They have helped me a lot entering into my second year in the NFL. Off-topic; do you have any input on mode 2 and 3 for the 400m 2.8? I use it on a monopod during games and can't find any video on the benefits of these modes.
II is best as you are always moving left to right or right to left as you pan to find receivers, etc...
Hello , Between a Sony 200 - 600 mm lens And a Sony 100-400 F 4.5 - 5.6 with a multiplier of 1.4 to use on a Sony A7 IV which of the two solutions is better for sports photos at night with very good lighting?
neither. I;'d go for the 70-200mm f/2.8 GMII with the 1.4X to get to 300mm f/4 instead.
Love the vids PMR thank you! Please help me with a dilemma, how does the AF on the A7R4 compare to 1DM2? Shoot HS football and basketball with horrible light. It'd be great to be able to crop but the AF is imperative, A9 I know is insane but the reach forces me to crop and I'd love he extra pixels to do that. With your experience with both, I'm referring to you. 10 fps is not a problem. Thanks again for the work.
The a7RIV with 14 stops of dynamic range will put even a 1DXII to shame in low light. So, yeah, using an a7RIV would be better and it would still give you 10 fps... BUT!!!!! the a9 is still going to be better and tracking moving subjects if you shoot sports. NOTHING beats the a9 for AF on either adapted glass or Sony glass...
I have this setup of a92 and the 200-600 mm lens haven't test jet thank you once again for sharing
Hope you enjoy it!
I would like to buy this lens. I think it will work well with a7iii too. I still have old G2 70-400mm and using it with LEA3 adapter on my two bodies a6500 and a7iii. With a7iii it working 40% better than with a6500 but crop factor I do not use for groups games only motorsports and in manual focus only. Thank you, Patrick, for sharing it with us. (If you have done some tests with a7iii or have any advice will be great to hear it ;) ).
it works great with A7III. you will never miss that LEA3 once you try an FE lens on a 10 fps FF body!!!!
A great video and really informative I'm just wondering what image stabilization mode you shoot when doing the soccer and how do you get to the menu for 600mm to 900 apsc a think you said.
I have the canon 70-200 with the mc-11 adapter and I am using the Sony A9. Do you know if it’s close to 20 FPS
only when you stop af. when you shoot in manual focus or when you arrest the af from working (as with back button focus), you will achieve 20 fps--otherwise it will be 10 fps
I've shot the A7R4 with a 70-200 f/2.8 LII using a Metabones V adapter. The tracking speed of the AF is abysmal. PM says 10fps but real world action with an adapted lens I'm lucky to get 3 because it breaks lock constantly, even with the adapter in advanced mode. You can't even reliably focus+recompose as the tracking breaks when you move the lens about 75% of the time. It might perform better on the A9 but I doubt it. (Edit: But using that lens on relatively stationary targets? WOW - nice shots ;) )
Hi Patrick. Today I shot eagles with Canon 5D M4 and Sigma 150-600 Sport. While some pictures were keepers, my question is this. I also own a Sony A7III. Would I be better off with the Sony 200-600 with the A7III body for clarity. My two eagle pictures were shot
at 600mm 6.3 and 5000 ISO. Would that high of ISO make things blurry or is it me?? Thanks for your reply.
I used to shoot Canon (5DSR) and my longest lens for it was the Tamron 150-600 G2. I would be dreading the edit of an ISO 5000 shot even if I managed to get perfect exposure with it. Canons do *not* do well at high ISO and tend to be noisy as hell - the consequence of not being ISO invariant. I cannot speak to the A7III - when I switched to Sony I chose the A7R4... but a properly exposed ISO 5000 shot with it is easily handled in post. I shoot nature in the Pacific Northwest with the 200-600G -- constant cloud cover and high shutter speeds do not mix well. The majority of my shots are well above ISO 5000 and the plurality of my shots for 6 months of the year are at *ISO 12,800* - and not only does it handle it well they're printable/sellable shots. There's noise of course, you can't avoid that at such high ISO, but provided you got a proper ETTR exposure in the field and mostly filled your frame (you cannot crop much on high ISO shots) that noise is easily taken care of in post. I would at least recommend you rent the 200-600 for your A7III and give it a spin. It'd only cost you about $110 for a week. If you have the budget throw in the 1.4x extender and try your shots with that too. I do not know if it would handle the ISO as well as my A7R4 does - but at the very least it would be worth finding out.
Hi Patrick,
How about analyzing and critiquing a basketball shoot to show what you look for and what you try to avoid in the shots?
Thank!
OK, I can do that...
You talk about being able to lock focus on to a specific player and the camera following the player despite distractions. Is that a feature specific to the A9? I have the A7iii. Is it available on my camera?
Real Time Tracking is only in the a9, a7RIV, and a6400 right now but it is in a9 only after installing firmware 5.0.
You really knows how to shot soccer, I would like to see your photos using the428
thanks!
Wondering between this, the 100-400, and the 70-200 + 1.4x (+crop mode) you'd rather shoot a game with..
it all depends on the light. If you are shooting a noon start football game, I'd want the new 200-600 lens. If it's a night game at a really dark and poorly lite high school, I'd want the 70-200mm f/2.8, 400GM. If it's little kids soccer, I'd want the 100-400GM.
Thanks...very helpful as I shoot soccer with A9 and 100-400 and live in crop mode. What focus sensitivity setting are you at? Also, what lens OSS mode do you use on 100-400 and now 200-600? thanks again!
Great questions... With the 400GM and 600GM, I use 5 but while I started that game at 5, I had to move it down to 3 or 4 with the 200-600. The wider lens openings on the GM's allow the AF to be more accurate. I think I shot mostly at 4. It would also depend a lot on the sport, too.
Patrick Murphy-Racey thx...lens stabilization off being on a monopod with high shutter?
@@eosuser1 actually no, I use mode II with the internal IBIS system. This is meant for panning. When you do quick tracking of a QB throwing a pass downfield, the IBIS helps to keep things calmed down until you can get on the receiver. Hope this makes sense...
Hi, how are you? i am using a sony a7III + sony 200-600 to shoot football, and the pictures are not sharp and the focus is not good, when i use a tamron 70-180 lens the pictures are beautiful and in focus, but when i use the sony 200 -600 the photos are horrible and out of focus. can you tell me what this could be?
There are two reasons that are probable. 1. if you photos aren't sharp, it's likely because the shutter speed is too low. You really can't shoot the 200-600G under 1250th even on a monopod. 2. Your 70-200 let's in more than 4X more light than the f/6.3 lens.
@@PMRTV I'm using 1600 speed, 6.3 aperture and ISO 1000, the photos are blurry and out of focus. I've seen several videos on TH-cam using other cameras and the focus is perfect, but when I use it on my a7III to shoot football, it's not sharp and the focus is blurry.
@@madsondeleon8568 is there a filter on the 200-600G?
Sorry, I'm using the A7III with the 200/600 and I take photographs of avifauna and I can assure you that even small birds never get blurry!! You're definitely making some settings wrong!
Best super zoom in the market right now bar none.
agreed!
So much great info from a Pro, many thanks. So I have the a7iii, what I would like to know is, what would be the difference if you had the a7iii instead of the amazing a9 as far as results go here. I know its a hard thing to compare but a basic difference so I get a better understanding of what the a7iii limitations are compared to the a9.
www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/02/comparing-the-sony-a7r-iii-to-the-sony-a9-a7rii/
"The Sony a9 was Sony’s first move to this newer body with the bigger battery, dual card slots, etc. but it was priced as the most expensive model in their mirrorless lineup. The Sony a9 is directed at the sports and action photographers out there who desire higher frame rates, faster write speeds and faster autofocus. The A7R III took the features of that camera that were important to every photographer and put it in a less expensive body with higher resolution. The Sony a7R III and Sony a9 are marketed at similar, but different photographers. The Sony A9 is kind of like the Nikon D5/Canon 1DX II, while the A7R III is like the Nikon D850/Canon 5D IV for those of you who are in the DSLR world more than the mirrorless world. One thing I do really like about the A9 vs. the a7R III is the extra dials on top to adjust the frame rates and AF/MF settings. Getting down into the nitty-gritty detail stuff, the A9 has about 50% more Phase Detect autofocus points which means the A9 will give you better performance when you’re using the eye detect or tracking autofocus functions since the points cover almost all of the sensor. The Sony a9 also has a no-blackout EVF in high-speed shooting which makes shooting sports and action much easier. The stacked sensor in the Sony a9 is what allows for higher processing power which gives you that extra speed in writing to the card, the much higher buffer, etc. The last point I really want to make about the A9 is that it has a more highly sealed body than the A7R III. The A7R III does have distinct advantages that more of the general photography (and video) community will be able to leverage. Obviously, the higher resolution itself is a big thing but also the ISO control is a bit better once you start getting up beyond 3200 ISO. The dynamic range is something that everyone can appreciate, and the lack of an anti-aliasing filter will give you sharper images. In short, the A9 is a camera that’s geared towards the pro market that doesn’t need the extra resolution of the Sony A7R III, and can afford the added price."
www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1594188
Hi Patrick, do you need to get some sort of model release from the school / event management in order to upload content to TH-cam when dealing with minors (student athletes under 18 years old), or is it because you are photographing in a public space, you are allowed to post on TH-cam? I'm asking because I shoot a lot of high school sports and want to bring some of that into the TH-cam space. Thanks.
In the US, we can photograph anyone in public no matter how old they are. Plus parents might enjoy seeing their kids in action.
Thanks for this Patrick. I currently have the 100-400 and love the AF and sharpness, but on my copy, the zoom is too stiff (even with the zoom tightness at smooth) and I will often unintentionally shift the camera/lens as I zoom because of the effort it takes to zoom. I've missed too many shots as a result. Do you find it similar on your 100-400 and how do you find the zoom force/effort on the 200-600? Thanks.
mine is the same. I wish it would be much looser but I've tried others and they are all the same...
Could you please give me a monopod recommendation for sports video/photography
This is my favorite one on a budget and it packs super small too: amzn.to/3r9JUdZ
I've been using the lens about a week now. I think some of the complaints about sharpness are due to atmosphere. When you're at 600mm, there's a lot of molecules between you and the subject. That said, this still isn't up to the GM standard for sharpness, when you really dig into a closer subject, taken with tripod, no motion. You're getting a great lens . . . for the money. But no, you're not getting GM prime quality.
"But no, you're not getting GM prime quality." Nobody said that. You are getting GM zoom image quality though.
"But no, you're not getting GM prime quality." Nobody said that. You are getting GM zoom image quality though.
At 600mm theres a lot of molecules between you and the subject - if youve focused on a distant subject.!!!!! The focal length of the lens is independant from its focusing distance (within its given focusing range). Use mine on small birds only 10 metres away and have no noticeable issues with atmospheric haze. No one to my knowledge has said you will get g master performance out of this lense. And that goes double for g master prime quality. Of course its going to be inferior! . So yes, good lense for the money.
you are correct. if you are in a particularly humid part of the USA like me (TN), you struggle with heat waves all the time until the Fall brings cooler weather.
I mean um it's not a prime lens and it's a g lens. Why would anyone expect a gm prime quality, expecially at $1999?!
Have you shot this lens in even darker situations? Using the a9 of course.
no, sadly, I had to ship it back before I got a chance to shoot under lights only...
@@PMRTV Alright. I'm very curious how it will perform in a Friday night lights type of situation. High school football type of lighting.
Great video thank you.
How are you identify plater in camera to stay focused on that player?
What button on your A9 did you assign the APS-C/Super 35mm fiction?
Great shots. Love the way you point out what you are looking for in a good shot.
Great questions: 1. I use Real Time Tracking (a9/a7rIV/a6400 only right now) set to flexible spot small. 2. I use the focus hold button on the lens to zoom in to APS-C. Easy!!! 3. thanks for your kind comments :)
Great video! Could it be used after nightfall with stadium lights illuminating the pitch?
depends on how much light there is after dark. Each stadium is different.
At 6.3 the background seems very busy and not really out of focus to any great extent. It's eas to see why people (who can afford it) buy F4 lenses. I just wouldn't like the images that lens produces at all, regardless of its price. I think a 100 to 400 F5.6 would be a better lens.
To get the same range as the 2 to 6 g on the 1 to 4 gm you would need a 1.4 tc which would result in less light = worse bokeh and less sharpness than the 2 to 6 g. 1 to 4 is better if you need to travel and don't need the extra range.
where’d you get the hat?
Sony gives them away at all events. Next one is in NYC Nov. 18/19th at Creative Space: alphauniverse.com/creativespace/
Could you teach us how to pre focus if I want to press the bottom to focus at the distance 600 across the field, thank you
I assumed you would get the 600 when it was announced, I wasn't sure you would get the 200-600, but for some events, I can see it being a better tool that won't feel like a boat anchor after 2-3 days in a row of hauling it around.
Pro's will likely find more reasons to go with the faster and pricier 400/600(less noise and better separation that will help sell images.
Pro's will likely want a 200-600/4 at 3-4x the price of this lens.
Overall I think this is a nearly perfect lens for an aperture sport or wildlife shooter.
I agree!!!! It' a fantastic deal and a much better buy even when you consider Tamron and Sigma's lenses in the same range that cost less. I still think the 200-600 is the best bang for your buck on the planet right now...
The game you shot for this video is a turf field and doesn’t look like a lot of Sun...have you seen heat distortion on turf with Sun 400mm or so? My 100-400GM sharpness goes down starting around 350mm especially later in the day...much sharper on grass fields...am I imagining this or have you seen this as well. I typically I sit when I shoot so that may play into the heat distortion, standing seems to help sharpness. I am thinking heat distortion will be worst @ 400-600 due to more compression.
heat waves affect super-telephotos no matter what speed they are. In my experience, if the air temp is just 85F, then the fake turn fields are usually 100F. If it's in the mid 90's like in is here in TN, you WILL see heat waves messing up sharp focus for sure, and especially at the longer end of your zoom range.
Should i get an a6400 or a7ii to go with this lens for wildlife and sports.
3 years later and the guys didnt reply lol,i own a6400 as well and i wonder if its good for sports,one thing for sure,its only for sunny day time shoot to get optimum image.
Typo in description says 200-400. Also when you share link, it come up 200-400mm lens.
yep, I fixed it but YT doesn't seem to want to change it--must be some deal with the original video, etc... not sure but it's a bummer. Some people see the fix if they find the video on their own but if you got it from a link then you see it before I made the edit/change.
Hey Patrick it’s Mickey from Durys rip. Do you have a video where you shoot the 200-600 at a night football game?
no... I need to shoot one for sure
I have Sony a73 thinking to buy the lens will I have great results?
Yes the 7m3 can do sports no problem.
yep!!!!
What software are you using to edit the images?
photo mechanic. Awesome stuff!!!!
When will you bring the Test with the a6600?
I have this set up now for 2024 (an a9 v1 and 200-600) I shot motocross yesterday 1300 images only 3 were not in focus.. even this camera released in may 2017 is still kicking even the new 2023 and 2024 cameras focus to the curb.. The a9 v1 is like 1500$ now on the used market and it is a real bargain at that
I agree. the original A9 is still a great camera as long as where you shoot has no flicker...
@@PMRTV Mostly outdoors, wildlife, sports, motocross.. Still learning what focus to use, as I am used to Nikon and canon for many years.. To track or not to track and when and where etc etc..
do you find this lens to heavy to hand hold for long periods of time?
if you work out often, yes... :)
A much better test for the AF tracking on the A9 would be with the 400 f2.8. When using the 200-600 at f6.3, the depth of field is so large that even it it did "miss", the subject would still appear sharp. However, at f2.8, any missed focus would be immediately apparent. I'm not knocking - I own the A9 and it's totally awesome :)
Do you use a monopod? Any luck shooting under the night lights?
all the time!!! I have three or four of them--my main one for the big glass is a carbon fiber Feisol FEISOL CM-1471 Rapid Carbon Fiber Four-Section Monopod (German). Then I use a smaller four section one made by Sirui that is perfect for 200-600G and smaller lenses: amzn.to/3aXYs4E
wh1000xm2? i have 3 and they are awesome
yes, they are killer headphones!!!
If you use an A7R4 on this, it would be worse than the A9? if so how come?
I shoot nature and BIF with the A7R4, lots of action. The image quality would be superior and they have essentially the same amazing focusing systems. That said - the downside is the difference in raw *speed* -- The A9 is a BEAST with a real-world actual framerate of 20 shots per second - all with *no* shutter blackout. You will get nowhere near the same framerates with the A7R4 - close to half in fact, and you still have blackout. For sports (and nature/BIF) those two differences combine into a huge thing. Not only does the A9 shoot faster it can drive that lens motor faster too. The A9 would be more than double the speed of the A7R4 which would increase your compositional and in-focus keeper rates substantially. The tradeoff is that when you *do* nail the shot with the A7R4 the resulting image is going to be amazing... you'll just do that a lot more often using the A9.
@@Tinfoilnation 20 FPS is going to be crazy in post. I was trying to get some good shots with the A7R4 but the focus tracking of things moving isn't there of course because of the frame rate. If you don't get the 200-600 for the A9 then you are missing out.
I just prefer static shots like architecture and objects.
I've had my copy for the last 3 weeks and I am ashamed to say it, but if they would have put a G master label and charged $1500 more I would have still payed the price. The sharpness is ridiculous. I am selling my 100-400. My only complaint about this lens is the minimum focus distance
Yeah I'm keeping the g master because of its close up ability. Amazing that the 200-600 is as sharp as everyone's saying. Wasnt expecting that!. Ive got mine but the weather's not letting me test it properly.
I cant wait to get mine on sept 12th for my a6400 ........ yup im using it on an a6400 lol
EDIT: Sold my a6400 and got a sweet deal on an a7riii lol
Why do you insist so much about having both feet off the ground? It's a plus for some very energetic or "extreme" situations, but that isn't always the case. Actually, in overcast days, where no shadows are cast on the ground, photos with both feet off the ground look worse; they look like "pasted on".
Ditto. I like it for track and field though. Seeing eyes, facial expression, body contact, etc., is much more important in sports like soccer, imo.
@@slimphotog Yes, there are more important features, like expression and body posture. Feet off the ground communicate lightness and agility but football is a contact sport where power is at least as important as agility! A good ground grip of a player running behind the ball is much more significant for football than players always levitating above the ground.
@@slimphotog Take this picture for instance, the sheer power that is expressed by the muscles tension can only happen when the player's foot grips on the ground, the moment the leg is raised and doesn't grip anymore all the muscles tension is gone:
www.pinterest.it/pin/569986896562065275/
Everyone has their opinion regarding what is the best capture scenario and none of them are necessarily wrong. You are always looking for 'peak action' that includes faces and ball. That said, and having shot soccer for 20+ years, I usually gravitate to submitting those where the player is off the ground if all other factors are equal.
great post Matt S!!!! yes!!!!
Sports photos like these always look too busy and messy to my eyes. No wonder I'm a wildlife photographer.
yeah, we don't get ot pick pretty backgrounds which is why long glass is so important...
Patrick, something is not right with youtube or something because all the photos you showed were not sharp. I looked at the settings on the side of your monitor and they are not sharp and could not read them. I have the FE 200-600 GM on my A9 and the photos are very sharp.
Roscoe Gore that’s because he didn’t leave time for the video to process before going public so it was only 360p for while. Now the photos will look sharp.
The 200-600 is not a GM. it's a G
You can't tell the sharpness on youtube except if he zooms the shots to 1:1, instead of 24%, it's just the video compression, there's no problem with his photos.
@leicanoct lol... 600f4 isn't that much sharper. It's had better bokeh for sure and obviously faster glass and autofocus but the optics aren't that much sharper. No
@leicanoct I don't care who you believe
I saw a review on this lens where the reviewer indicated that it is a good lens for documenting events and action but not for making nice photos. Based on this video I’d have to agree. While beauty in photography is subjective, my opinion is that in these photos the beauty is not great. Don’t get me wrong...when I started shooting sporting events I’d have loved to have shots like these. But as you evaluate, over years, what’s good and what’s not in a photo, you learn to discard many of the photos that look like the ones that were taken with this lens. Obviously it’s great at focusing and it’s sharp, and this photographer and his images (using other lenses) are light years ahead of what I’ve done in the past. But this makes me cringe when he discusses how great it is. He does put its greatness often in terms of value and that’s hard to argue with. But when he says that the background is out of focus in an image, my thought is “well it is, of course, but not very well”. If I were to shoot an event like this, I’d rather use even a 70-200 2.8 lens and stick to getting pictures when the players are closer to me. But then again, for documenting an event (which might be required) this does very well. I have put a link to some of my sport photos on Flickr here to show that I have at least some knowledge in this area, admittedly no where near what this photographer has. www.flickr.com/photos/88031594@N00/albums/72157713335691502
360p resolution only....
18:11 "This is now a 900mm f6.3": no it is not. I know it wasn't your main point and I'm nitpicking, but cropped to 900mm equivalent focal length it has f9 equivalent aperture. Pretty sure you know that, too.
The f should no change, I will double check tonite
@@efrainsueldo You are missing the point. Of course the f-number doesn't change. Nor does the focal length.
@@daran0815 the focal length change to 900mm f6.3 as it reads in the PC as well
@@efrainsueldo That is interesting and all, but not physically correct. A 900mm f6.3 has at least a 142mm front lens. As the 200-600G has a 92mm front opening, it simply can not gather enough light to function as a 900mm f6.3.
Daran from hell sorry, but exposure is still f6.3 not f9. Field of view and (apparently) magnification is equal to 900mm. F9 is the (apparent) depth of field due to the narrower fov, or better for the greater magnification. But exposure don’t change if you crop! Should be better to understand the meaning of what you read online before give incorrect info or try to teach to someone with a long and steady experience as Patrick
100-400 GM with a 1.4TC might be a better option
If you want to use the 1.4TC, it means you want the long end, so you're getting 560mm f/8 vs 600mm f/6.3 with the 200-600 lens, 2/3rd of a stop of light advantage is quite huge, not only in terms of noise but also the better background compression ... also tests have shown that the 200-600 is slightly sharper than the 100-400 + 1.4TC, so yeah, looks like 100-400gm is better if you're interested in 100-400, otherwise the 200-600 is a better choice.
Here is a comparison:
www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-fe-200-600-vs-fe-100-400-gm/
The 200-600mm is just as good.
I kind of agree, to a point. TC's do not compete with focal length. Sometimes when you need a real super-tele at 600mm, nothing substitutes....
for F6.3 lens it is too expensive
The lens is worth the price. Use it before you dismiss it. I have it and love it.
@@6gwilliamsgood luck with F6.3 lens for $2000.
@@vladepast4936 look at the shots I made at F9, f11, f13 as well as f6.3. the lens is a winner. If you don't like it or want it fine, it will sell and be used great by others. A bargain at $2000. Nothing else on the market is built like this and at this price. It costs less than the Sigma Sport version of their 150-600mm f5-6.3 lens. Check out what I shot yesterday with it at one of my facebook sites: facebook.com/GSWilliamsPhotography/?ref=bookmarks
@@6gwilliams there isn't a single lense that's better in this focal range vs. Price. Your only choice for something better is a 600mm prime or 400 2.8 with TCs. That means you'll need to pony up some serious Cash! In it's price range it's a sublime lense period
Not sure what else youncan get native at 600mm zoom in this price range. Please tell if you know.
I guess if you are taking pictures of your kids it ok, for a pro no.
I'm a pro and while I wouldn't take it to a dark football game under lights, I would rather it over a 400GM or 600GM for golf....
Seriously. Do you want to capture blur and lots of noise. No publisher or newspaper will want those photos. I was able to test it and I am not impressed.
newspaper? what year are you living in? it's a high school soccer game, we are talking Instagram!! lol
Well, if we're talking about the editor of the local paper, they'd love to get some good art of a local varsity soccer match. That's what sells papers...moms & dads wanting to see coverage of their kids' events. As you saw towards the end of the video, you can shoot soccer at 1/1250 to 1/1600 and still nicely freeze the action. If noise is an issue for you, shoot daytime events at those speeds and ISO 500. The noise will be negligible...not that it was at all unacceptable at 1/3200, ISO 1000.
Until Sony releases a 200-400 f/4 (I'd expect to see that before the 2020 Olympics), this and the 100-400 are a sports photog's two best options for reach in a zoom package. An enthusiast wildlife, bird or sports shooter; or someone looking to build a portfolio by shooting local sports to get credentials to shoot bigger events, could do a lot worse than this lens.
Bill Ferris I had a 20 year old kid call my DSLR a “diésel” camera. He must have thought, That thing surely works on fossil fuel or steam or something. BTW it was a mirrorless A7s with some vintage zooms!
@@nyambe LOVE THIS!!!! LOL
About or even more than 20 minuttes too long a review !
when you shoot 7500 pics of two games were is the skill, its just spray and pray photography.why were you shooting some at 3500th sec and some at 1000th sec?if you had lowered the iso the quality would have been better.
It's almost like the light was changing and it was getting darker - in fact I'm positive that was mentioned several times. Also - if you think you can shoot sports action and capture that perfect microsecond without using high capture rates then you're going to need to put up or shut up. As a reminder he's getting paid to make *certain* that he gets those shots - and your chances of getting those perfect moments at 20fps are a lot better than at 5.
@@Tinfoilnation Well said mate! PM-R knows what he's doing.
That’s a rude know it all comment. Patrick would forget more than you will ever know.
Horrible skin tones, SONY must go through careful RAW processing.
Show one of these photos to any 10 people on the street and see if any of them says anything negative at all (let alone “horrible”) about the skin tone.
Jay Choi maybe Sony will see your comment and give u a call lol
Old argument no longer applies to Sony files. Matter if fact I think skin tones are better than Canon, more Natural
Agree. For someone to call it “horrible” like there’s some sickly green on the faces or something, is ridiculous. And I’m not even a Sony shooter!
Sure! No vitriol here AT ALL!!! Shaking my head Jay