Northrups compare long zooms from all manufacturers, Sony 200-600 wins.

[Brownie]

Kind of out of the norm for me but interesting, especially if you're a bird/wildlife person and have been thinking about going to a different brand. I really thought the OM system would win out with the Canon in second, and Sony in third.

 

[spudhead]

I will give it a watch later Tim but it is a good lens at the price point when you find the sweet spots

 

[iain clyne]

Of zoom lenses of that range it is the best I've used.

 

[Brownie]

This was on the rumor site in the M-4/3 section. The butthurt over the results is intense. I agree with a lot though, it's tough to evaluate a lens when the camera sensors are all over the place. At that point they did the right thing and scored the entire ecosystem. But the fact remains that the OM-1 150-400 + OM-1 is $1000 more than an A1 and 200-600, $3500 more than an A7R V and 200-600, and $5000 more than an A7 IV and 200-600. And at that point you aren't saving anything in size.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I remember having the Sigma 150-600mm DG DN briefly before the Sony, and just the handling difference of the Sony alone absolutely blew the Sigma out of the water. It's engineering genius, a fantastic lens which has no right to be as agile as it actually is in the hand, it's ease of use for a lens that size is ridiculous!

 

[Brownie]

I remember having the Sigma 150-600mm DG DN briefly before the Sony, and just the handling difference of the Sony alone absolutely blew the Sigma out of the water. It's engineering genius, a fantastic lens which has no right to be as agile as it actually is in the hand, it's ease of use for a lens that size is ridiculous!

The smoothest zoom ring I've ever felt. Just like buttah!

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

The smoothest zoom ring I've ever felt. Just like buttah!

Yeeeeaaaah boy!!!

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Interesting, not surprised at the winner at all, a bit surprised by the Olympus comments and the Panasonic, but Panny cams aren't great for BIF anyway. They should have tried the Panasonic on the Olympus, something failed to mention was possible so the infrastrucure score is wrong. Pretty meaningless anyway.
There is no way that the Nikon, Not Nykon ffs, is lighter than the Sony, it's way heavier, I held one and it was noticeable.
Overall, I don't feel they tested very effectively.

 

[Brownie]

Interesting, not surprised at the winner at all, a bit surprised by the Olympus comments and the Panasonic, but Panny cams aren't great for BIF anyway. They should have tried the Panasonic on the Olympus, something failed to mention was possible so the infrastrucure score is wrong. Pretty meaningless anyway.
There is no way that the Nikon, Not Nykon ffs, is lighter than the Sony, it's way heavier, I held one and it was noticeable.
Overall, I don't feel they tested very effectively.

It was mostly hype.

The Nikon is lighter than the Sony according to specs. I think the Sony is so well balanced it carries and holds a lot better than you'd expect.

Panasonic's new camera has the same Hybrid system they put in their FF S5II, which by all reports is pretty good. If you read the comments they were called out for cheating and downgrading Panasonic specifically. It is also being contended that they took special liberties with Sony.

I wonder how Canon's new 200-800 would fare?

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Yeah it did seem biased. I'm surprised, maybe it's because the lens was on a Z8, which is the size and weight of a concrete bollard

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

KIt was mostly hype.

The Nikon is lighter than the Sony according to specs. I think the Sony is so well balanced it carries and holds a lot better than you'd expect.

Panasonic's new camera has the same Hybrid system they put in their FF S5II, which by all reports is pretty good. If you read the comments they were called out for cheating and downgrading Panasonic specifically. It is also being contended that they took special liberties with Sony.

I wonder how Canon's new 200-800 would fare?

Canon make the ugliest lenses ever! The new 24-105mm f2.8 looks bloody horrible and the 200-800mm is the same, straight with no ergonomics. It's pretty obvious they still have a human design team because AI wouldn't be able to design something so horrendous looking...

F9 at 600-800mm. Pretty rough...

 

[Brownie]

F9 at 600-800mm. Pretty rough...

It would be exactly the same with a 1.4TC on the 200-600 to get to 800mm. One stop up from 6.3 is 9. Pretty typical for lenses like these.

 

[spudhead]

It would be exactly the same with a 1.4TC on the 200-600 to get to 800mm. One stop up from 6.3 is 9. Pretty typical for lenses like these.

Sony 200-600 plus 1.4x + f9 at 840mm which I am sure you know Tim

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

It would be exactly the same with a 1.4TC on the 200-600 to get to 800mm. One stop up from 6.3 is 9. Pretty typical for lenses like these.

Sony 200-600 plus 1.4x + f9 at 840mm which I am sure you know Tim

Well at 800mm and 840mm with a teleconverter it is, but what about no teleconverter at 600mm on both lenses?

 

[Brownie]

Sony 200-600 plus 1.4x + f9 at 840mm which I am sure you know Tim

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Brownie]

Well at 800mm and 840mm with a teleconverter it is, but what about no teleconverter at 600mm on both lenses?

If we want to pick a specific focal length out of a range to make a point.

If you want 800mm, then you deal with it. Canon already has a 100-500 4.5-7.1.

 

[RogerSmith]

the 200-600 is the lens that hooked me into the Sony system

 

[spudhead]

It would be exactly the same with a 1.4TC on the 200-600 to get to 800mm. One stop up from 6.3 is 9. Pretty typical for lenses like these.

With the canon its f9 come what may, with Sony it can be 600 at 6.3 or f9 at 840 with 1.4, so the canon is a none starter for me here in the Uk anyway not enough chance to use when light would be good enough

 

[Brownie]

With the canon its f9 come what may, with Sony it can be 600 at 6.3 or f9 at 840 with 1.4, so the canon is a none starter for me here in the Uk anyway not enough chance to use when light would be good enough

But it's not. I'm not sure where Clint got his information, maybe just an assumption.

You lose 1/3 of a stop at the short end, and 2/3 at 600mm. The lens isn't f/9 at 600mm.

And in any event, the question I asked was how this new lens would have fared in their lineup, nothing more or less.

 

[spudhead]

But it's not. I'm not sure where Clint got his information, maybe just an assumption.

View attachment 49917

You lose 1/3 of a stop at the short end, and 2/3 at 600mm. The lens isn't f/9 at 600mm.

And in any event, the question I asked was how this new lens would have fared in their lineup, nothing more or less.

might be at cross purposes Tim, just saying if canon have 100-500 or the 200-800 then I would not have any interest in the canon system if that does not change, the long end of that canon 800 is not going to work for me

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

the 200-600 is the lens that hooked me into the Sony system

Same. Tried it, had to own it.