Finding the macro limits of the 200-600 and a9

spudhead

Legendary Member
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Followers
13
Following
0
Joined
Oct 28, 2020
Posts
3,319
Likes Received
5,339
Name
Gary
Country
United Kingdom
So, I spent some time yesterday in changeable light trying to find the limits of the 200-600 lens used as a macro lens I believe the shots are all at 600mm so minimum focus distance around 2.3 metres although I could be wrong. please add your thoughts on the lens for close ups and add shots from the lens regardless of body used
hoverfly 2022  11.jpg
  • ILCE-9
  • Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/11
  • 1/1600 sec
  • ISO 2500
hoverfly 2022  4.jpg
  • ILCE-9
  • Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/7.1
  • 1/2500 sec
  • ISO 3200
hoverfly 2022  6.jpg
  • ILCE-9
  • Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/7.1
  • 1/2500 sec
  • ISO 2500
hoverfly 2022  2.jpg
  • ILCE-9
  • Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/11
  • 1/2000 sec
  • ISO 5000
hoverfly 2022  10.jpg
  • ILCE-9
  • Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/7.1
  • 1/3200 sec
  • ISO 4000
hoverfly 2022  8.jpg
  • ILCE-9
  • Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/7.1
  • 1/3200 sec
  • ISO 3200
hoverfly 2022  (2).jpg
  • ILCE-9
  • Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/1600 sec
  • ISO 4000
bees 2022  15.jpg
  • ILCE-9
  • Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/7.1
  • 1/2500 sec
  • ISO 2500
bees 2022  11.jpg
  • ILCE-9
  • Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/7.1
  • 1/2500 sec
  • ISO 5000
bees 2022  12.jpg
  • ILCE-9
  • Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/7.1
  • 1/2500 sec
  • ISO 5000
bees 2022  14.jpg
  • ILCE-9
  • Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/2000 sec
  • ISO 1600
and shots from the lens regardless of body used
 
7.8ft is the minimum according to Sony. I often feel it's more though, but I'm clearly not good at judging that. This Migrant Hawker was taken as close as I could get focus.
DSC00603 copy.jpg
  • ILCE-7RM4
  • FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/10
  • 1/640 sec
  • ISO 1000
 
All of the shots are good. The very first one looks a bit soft around the head, maybe just the focus point.

How much are you cropping these? It must be a huge crop to be that close. I made some over summer and cropped the heck out of them, the bees were nowhere near as large in my photos. You're starting with 24MP, what are you ending up with, around 2-4?

I suppose I could've gone more, I'll check later and see if they'll hold up.
 
All of the shots are good. The very first one looks a bit soft around the head, maybe just the focus point.

How much are you cropping these? They have to be a huge crop to be that close. I made some over summer and cropped the heck out of them, the bees were nowhere near as large in my photos. I suppose I could've gone more, I'll check later and see if they'll hold up to more cropping.
They are huge a small part of the original in all the shots and yes some are a bit soft and that was the purpose of the exercise to try to find the limit of this great lens
 
They are huge a small part of the original in all the shots and yes some are a bit soft and that was the purpose of the exercise to try to find the limit of this great lens
Tim the first file is 1.02
 
So, as an experiment, here's the image I posted originally. This is already a big crop, the upload is shown as 5MP. This is with the A7-IV:
bees squash by telecast, on Flickr

Since it was on Flickr and they have their own cheesy little editing program, I went in and did some mods. There's no rhyme nor reason to how much I cropped, I just did. It ended up 1.69MP. Over all though, not too bad?

bees squash by telecast, on Flickr

I'm utterly amazed at how much you crop yours as good as they look, and how much this is cropped and it still holds up.
 
So, as an experiment, here's the image I posted originally. This is already a big crop, the upload is shown as 5MP. This is with the A7-IV:
bees squash by telecast, on Flickr

Since it was on Flickr and they have their own cheesy little editing program, I went in and did some mods. There's no rhyme nor reason to how much I cropped, I just did. It ended up 1.69MP. Over all though, not too bad?

bees squash by telecast, on Flickr
it's crazy that this lens can do this Tim
Tim the first file is 1.02
 
I feel that maybe I could get slightly sharper images if I used dmf to tweak focus
I don't know. I think the camera is more accurate than my eyes. Using DMF is still going to depend on peaking and enlargements, which is effectively depending on the camera. Gone are the day of prisms in the viewfinder!

Mine are natural light as well. Looking at the exif I shot that image at 1/250 😲 and ISO 400, pretty doggone slow for a 600mm lens, but a testament to the system's stabilization. Next time I give it a whirl I'll bump my ISO and get the shutter speed up some. You and Kev are both using a much higher ISO, which I have a very hard time doing. It just feels...wrong!
 
I don't know. I think the camera is more accurate than my eyes. Using DMF is still going to depend on peaking and enlargements, which is effectively depending on the camera. Gone are the day of prisms in the viewfinder!

Mine are natural light as well. Looking at the exif I shot that image at 1/250 😲 and ISO 400, pretty doggone slow for a 600mm lens, but a testament to the system's stabilization. Next time I give it a whirl I'll bump my ISO and get the shutter speed up some. You and Kev are both using a much higher ISO, which I have a very hard time doing. It just feels...wrong!
Do you shoot in manual? I shoot manual 99% of the time as here in the Uk the weather tends to be dull, this year is an exception, so with 6.3 being the best we have I tend to be up on shutter speed and iso and often tweak exp dial
 
Do you shoot in manual? I shoot manual 99% of the time as here in the Uk the weather tends to be dull, this year is an exception, so with 6.3 being the best we have I tend to be up on shutter speed and iso and often tweak exp dial
Almost always. Even when I'm in my custom programmed mode at the drag strip I shoot in M. I guess I've been doing it so long I just find it more natural. The difference is there I use auto-ISO with a limit of 640 or 800 depending on the light, and when I'm shooting around the back yard and other 'stuff', I set ISO manually and leave it.

The only time I don't use M is when I'm out and about driving. I used to go on backroad photo drives, just to see what I could see. Many photos were made sitting in the vehicle in the middle of the road and I didn't have a lot of time, so I'd set the camera to P mode and let it run. That way if I did want a specific shutter speed or aperture, I could just spin a dial and know I was getting decent exposure.

While I won't say 'never', the amount of times you'll find my camera in A, S, or iA, are almost exactly that, never.
 
Agreed.

@Kevriano, how much are you cropping with the R-IV monster?
It varies, for that shot, very little, though it was shot in crop mode to start. On this shot I cropped down to around 3mb.
DSC04130 copy.jpg
  • ILCE-7RM4
  • FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/8
  • 1/1000 sec
  • ISO 200
 
These 2 images where shot with the 200-600 at closet focal point with A9ii..
F1AA37D9-3F55-448C-A3C6-EF704A4222B8.jpeg
  • ILCE-9M2
  • FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/2000 sec
  • ISO 2000
4584FEF8-D225-43FC-A340-982D09DF07C2.jpeg
  • ILCE-9M2
  • FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/2000 sec
  • ISO 2000
 
Now following along with this excellent thread..
After using a birding lens for macro, I used a macro lens for birding and got these.
1DA5779B-98C3-4EDE-89DB-F635EC722F34.jpeg
  • ILCE-9M2
  • FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
  • 90.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/2000 sec
  • ISO 1000
691B04F0-3252-4801-B6EB-68150EC4F377.jpeg
  • ILCE-9M2
  • FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
  • 90.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/2000 sec
  • ISO 2000
816B3687-72A1-447A-A660-61746B361034.jpeg
  • ILCE-9M2
  • FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
  • 90.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/2000 sec
  • ISO 1000
 
Almost always. Even when I'm in my custom programmed mode at the drag strip I shoot in M. I guess I've been doing it so long I just find it more natural. The difference is there I use auto-ISO with a limit of 640 or 800 depending on the light, and when I'm shooting around the back yard and other 'stuff', I set ISO manually and leave it.

The only time I don't use M is when I'm out and about driving. I used to go on backroad photo drives, just to see what I could see. Many photos were made sitting in the vehicle in the middle of the road and I didn't have a lot of time, so I'd set the camera to P mode and let it run. That way if I did want a specific shutter mode or aperture, I could just spin a dial and know I was getting decent exposure.

While I won't say 'never', the amount of times you'll find my camera in A, S, or iA, are almost exactly that, never.

These 2 images where shot with the 200-600 at closet focal point with A9ii..View attachment 25203View attachment 25204
Now following along with this excellent thread..
After using a birding lens for macro, I used a macro lens for birding and got these.
View attachment 25205View attachment 25206View attachment 25207
Just shows how good we have it, the glass and camera bodies are really good, its just a case of learning to get the best from the excellent kit available
 
So, getting away from bugs...

This was with the 7-IV and minimum focus distance, or at least as close as I could get without the frog jumping in. This crop is about 1 MP

DSC06154 by telecast, on Flickr
 
Nice. One item that's evolved as part of this discussion is how much the images are cropped. Any idea where these ended up?
This is the uncropped version of the first photo..
F99B3522-ACB3-46CB-9C18-6E548A769FF6.jpeg
  • ILCE-9M2
  • FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
  • 600.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/2000 sec
  • ISO 2000
 
Just shows how good we have it, the glass and camera bodies are really good, its just a case of learning to get the best from the excellent kit available
I totally agree… the best move I’ve made regarding photography was leaving Nikon for Sony..
 
some of the images are in the half to 3/4 mb size
I just checked Tim the bee shots range from 730kb to a massive 1.5mb and yes, the 730 kb shot shows it its softer but that's the point of the exercise
 
I totally agree… the best move I’ve made regarding photography was leaving Nikon for Sony..
I was just telling someone today how happy I've been with my decision to switch to Sony. I could cite a lot of different features, and in truth there are some features I miss from my old system, but the main thing is consistency. I feel like if I'm consistent, the camera is. That's not to say good/shot bad shot, my cameras are all more capable than am I and if there's a bad shot it's on me. What I mean is consistency during a specific event or shoot. Once I'm dialed in for the day it takes almost no effort to stay there.
 
I dont think their is a debate over Macro versus close up photography and many photography competitions recognise the difference based upon magnification level.

For sure there are some excellent images in this thread, as close up images, and as has been pointed out the crops are very heavy and it seems some of the better images were tripod based also.

Current camera technology/resolution, post processing developments and lens quality provides for such excellent cropped images but macro is another world and based upon true macro subject magnifications of 1:1 and greater, as we all know. the emphasis is different.

Again as we all know some macro lenses can be used to infinity focus and again will yield excellent images at much lower magnification than 1;1.

The attached is a crop from a x2 100 stack tiff image converted to JPG at 3/2 format and 10" image at 300 DPI resolution and whilst i do not suggest this is in any way a good image or comparable to the quality of the images by kev and spud, as its in need of substantial improvement, but as an initial foray into the capability of my louwa x2 85mm lens it illustrates the difference of higher magnification/detailed images versus close up fully sharp/resolved but lower detail/size images.

Absolutely, seeing the quality of the images by Kev, Spud et al I am sure many photography enthusiasts would prefer to see fully sharp close up images over the in your face highly magnified/detailed macro images , partially sharp or fully stacked, at 1:1 magnification and above.

Ultimately its a question of taste and additional effort in producing acceptable true macro images at high magnification and fine detail over an alternate lower level of magnification and detail but nevertheless very pleasing and high quality images in their own right.

View attachment 25210
 
I’m loving this thread…
Following on from previous.. I decided to try my Tamron 24mm 2.8 with close up shots.. I have to say I’m pretty impressed..
Here’s a shot of a beaver jawbone and a shot of my setup..
CE6009E1-9DF4-4FE2-9A6E-9904024279DB.jpeg
  • ILCE-7RM4A
  • E 24mm F2.8 F051
  • 24.0 mm
  • ƒ/16
  • 1/60 sec
  • ISO 400
8BF1C0D6-3154-4DF2-8CBE-FE2C9BD82F45.jpeg
  • iPhone 13
  • iPhone 13 back dual wide camera 5.1mm f/1.6
  • 5.1 mm
  • ƒ/1.6
  • 1/120 sec
  • ISO 100
 
Just get closer with a macro lens and look at the fun you will have with the bug's reaction. 🤪

It was not happy with me taking a 20mm 4:1 macro near its face. Uncropped image and yes, very narrow DoF at 4:1.
I really need to get back into using my flash or flashes like I did for this shot.
 
Back
Top