Welcome to Our Sony Alpha Shooters Forum

Be apart of something great, join today!

Reply to thread

Message

Well, the lens is still heavy, but I can carry it and use it handheld. I'm also investigating monopods and monopod heads.

I honestly don't know if I've used this combination before - I got the 300 GM at the same time as the A9 III, and I was somewhat obsessed with it

So this is the 200-600mm G at 291mm f/5.6 (wide open) on the A9 III at 1/500, ISO 640, shooting into a shaded spot occupied by a medium sized Gippsland Water Dragon. The image is cropped from 6000x4000 down to 2000x1399 (so it uploads at 100% on this site).

I'd say my copy of the 200-600 is pretty sharp judging by this shot And the 400-800 is reputed to be sharper - oh, dear, could I cope?

Dangnabbit! I think this weekend is going to cost me a chunk of money.

Before anyone points out that the 400-800 doesn't go down to 291mm, allow me to remind you that this is a crop of 1/3 of the frame - so 800mm would make the lizard roughly fill the frame - I'd HATE that (not!!).

[ATTACH=full]72022[/ATTACH]

<blockquote data-quote="AlphaWorld" data-source="post: 67626" data-attributes="member: 2525">Well, the lens is still heavy, but I can carry it and use it handheld. I&#039;m also investigating monopods and monopod heads.I honestly don&#039;t know if I&#039;ve used this combination before - I got the 300 GM at the same time as the A9 III, and I was somewhat obsessed with it <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />So this is the 200-600mm G at 291mm f/5.6 (wide open) on the A9 III at 1/500, ISO 640, shooting into a shaded spot occupied by a medium sized Gippsland Water Dragon. The image is cropped from 6000x4000 down to 2000x1399 (so it uploads at 100% on this site).I&#039;d say my copy of the 200-600 is pretty sharp judging by this shot <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; And the 400-800 is reputed to be sharper - oh, dear, could I cope?Dangnabbit! I think this weekend is going to cost me a chunk of money.Before anyone points out that the 400-800 doesn&#039;t go down to 291mm, allow me to remind you that this is a crop of 1/3 of the frame - so 800mm would make the lizard roughly fill the frame - I&#039;d HATE that (not!!).[ATTACH=full]72022[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AlphaWorld, post: 67626, member: 2525"] Well, the lens is still heavy, but I can carry it and use it handheld. I'm also investigating monopods and monopod heads. I honestly don't know if I've used this combination before - I got the 300 GM at the same time as the A9 III, and I was somewhat obsessed with it :) So this is the 200-600mm G at 291mm f/5.6 (wide open) on the A9 III at 1/500, ISO 640, shooting into a shaded spot occupied by a medium sized Gippsland Water Dragon. The image is cropped from 6000x4000 down to 2000x1399 (so it uploads at 100% on this site). I'd say my copy of the 200-600 is pretty sharp judging by this shot :) And the 400-800 is reputed to be sharper - oh, dear, could I cope? Dangnabbit! I think this weekend is going to cost me a chunk of money. Before anyone points out that the 400-800 doesn't go down to 291mm, allow me to remind you that this is a crop of 1/3 of the frame - so 800mm would make the lizard roughly fill the frame - I'd HATE that (not!!). [ATTACH type="full"]72022[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Verification