Still pondering the 400-800

[RogerSmith]

I have to admit, I'm still pondering the 400-800. I have owned the 2-6 for years and done well with it. I also have a 400 2.8. I focus on birds by default (not a lot of mammals around me) but I tend to build a kit that can travel. If I went to Yellowstone (plan to next spring) I'm pretty sure I would prefer the 2-6. Looking at past images I saw a good number of images in the 300-400 range. Plus...I would probably bring the 400 prime and couldn't imagine also lugging a bit zoom. But...around town in San Diego CA I of course would always love a bit more reach. Any thoughts from folks with both or have made the switch? @Tim Mayo I think you might be in the processes of gathering those thoughts to update the blog post. Appreciate any earlier conclusions. Cheers.

 

[THXGEEK]

I have both end use them equally. The 2-6 is for hiking and the 4-8 is for short hikes (really short - I'm OFOOS: Old Fat Out Of Shape) and then only when I have a monopod or tripod that I can deploy.

My admittedly amateur eye cannot differentiate any substantial difference in sharpness between the two.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I traded in the 200-600 while waiting for the 400-800. In hindsight, there are a few times when it would be nicer to have the 200-600, but for most of the time that I am using the 400-800, I am very happy to have it over 200-600.

The advantages of the 400-800:

• The extra length (duh!)
• The more powerful focus motors
• Getting 800mm without a TC.

I have not yet tried it with the 2x, but I expect it to handle the 2x better than the 200-600 does.

Yes, it is heavier than the 200-600, but I am coping with it handheld better than I expected to!

I think Sony has been very clever making so many of their long zooms fixed length - it means that the zoom ring is much lighter (not pushing a heavy barrel out), so it is easy to move with one finger. Trying to think how many if their zooms are fixed length. I know of:

• 50-150 f/2
• 70-200 f/2.8 II
• 200-600
• 400-800

Are there others?

 

[RogerSmith]

thank you both, all this is great food for thought

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I have both. The 400 800 is certainly the sharper out of the box, and AF is super fast, but I would not ditch the 200 600 for it. 400 at the short end is limiting, and though I love the close focus at that length, it soon moves back as you zoom. It is definitely more of a challenge to handhold too, especially in the wind. Where it will definitely be of an advantage is for smaller wildlife, and especially if you shoot in crop mode, it makes for less cropping in full frame to start with anyway, but almost none in many situations in crop. This helps a lot for framing your subject.
Overall, I'd say that if you are a wildlife/birder it's a no brainer to get one eventually.

 

[Tim Mayo]

It's definitely a brilliant lens for birds, especially the smaller ones providing the light is half decent. It's fast and sharp so no complaints there. It's not a lens that I'd be taking travelling with me though or walking around with a great deal. If most of your shots are in the 300-400 range then I think you've answered your question, stick with the 200-600. If I do go for a walk with it then it's normally mounted to my monopod. I hope to meet a friend for a walk around a lake next week and I'll be taking the Sigma 500 with me as it's much more comfortable to carry for any length of time, both in my hands and my backpack.