Sony FE 200-600 f/5.6-f/6.3 G Announced

[pierces]

The $2000-ish (rumored) 200-600 was supposed to be officially announced at the end of journalists' event today but their non-disclosure agreement doesn't expire until Monday 6/10. Apparently, they are announcing then along with another "fast telephoto prime". The 200-600 is a "G", so I assume the image quality is going to follow the recent trend of excellent G lenses. A Bigma killer?

 

The prime? 500mm and 600mm f/4 lenses have been patented. One of these? Something sneaky like the old Minolta 500mm mirror lens? (Unlikely, but I always thought donut bokeh was cool 🙂)

 

Some great stuff, but the APS-C camera world is waiting for some news. I'm a lot more likely to take a hammer to the plaster pig for an $1700 APS-C body than a $12,000 lens.

 

sonyalpharumors.com will likely be the first to break the news but I'll update after the Monday reveal.

 

Dave

 

[pierces]

The rumor mill has predicted with high certainty (odd mix of meanings there) that the Monday announcement will be the 600mm f/4 and it will have a $14k price tag. 

 

Yay Sony for releasing another super-telephoto that I don't need, want or is remotely affordable to the vast majority of photographers. I'm sure the action/wildlife pros who have embraced the A9 will be popping the corks on Monday, but I am left sitting in the corner waiting for my turn on the dance floor.

 

Actually, I am no longer shocked at the pricing and no longer shake my head when these lofty units appear. I have learned that good lenses are expensive. I have also learned that great lenses are more expensive. Based on how long I had to wait for my 24-105 f/4 G, priciness is not necessarily a death sentence to sales if the quality is worth it. The wait times for the $1400 24mm f/1.4 GM seem to support the theory. I still respect the Sony 16-50 PZ kit lens for APS-C as a flawed but ingenious lens that will take excellent photos when one understands it's limitations. Same with the 28-70 FE kit lens. I have, however, learned that better lenses are worth the money. When I switched to the 18-105 f/4 G on the A6x00 bodies, I could see the difference. Not night and day, but I didn't have to tweak images as much. As nice as that lens is , the FE 24-105 f/4 G that is my current daily driver is a prime example of "you date your camera but you marry your lens". I can see it outliving several iterations of bodies until growing sensor resolutions force it into retirement. I still love to play with the $100 7artisans lenses on the A6300 and the Rokinon fisheye is a great little optic, but for a primary use lens, I now see the benefit of waiting a little longer and saving up for a better lens. I also see why a professional photographer will drop vast (to me) sums on equipment if they perceive value. 

 

I guess the best news is that the tech developed to produce these stellar top-end lenses isn't locked away in a safe for use only on the high-dollar units. A lot of that becomes standard and is used on any new lens introduced afterwards. Granted, a $350 kit lens won't have ultra-low dispersion glass elements but the molded aspherical lens components and focusing motors in them were once only used in $2000 pro zooms.

 

It's a great time to be a photographer. And it seems to be getting better.

 

Dave

Edited June 7, 2019 by pierces

[pierces]

The cat is officially out of the non-disclosure agreement.

 

Both the FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS and the FE 600mm F4 GM lenses are official and both will be available in August with the 200mm-600mm going for $2000 and the 600mm for $13,000.

 

DPReview TV did a video of their hands-on at the Sony event. 

https://youtu.be/9BZBZFWtF_0

 

200-600 Sample gallery:

https://www.dpreview.com/samples/5011616089/sony-fe-200-600mm-f5-6-6-3-g-oss-sample-gallery

 

The 200-600 appears to me on par with the 100-400 with fast autofocus and sharp wide open corner to corner at 200 with slight corner softening at 600mm. Described as an enthusiast wildlife photographer's dream lens.

 

The 600mm? Yeah. As expected, it's great. It's also a lotto or rental lens. 

 

At some point in the next year or so, I will have to make up my mind on a telephoto. If my grandson tries hockey and loves it, I will have to consider the 70-200 f/2.8 GM. Outdoor sports or Alaska? 100-400 or 200-600? I have no idea. Maybe I'll just watch for Justin's 200-600 photos when he inevitably buys one and decide then. Meanwhile, my 70-300 is pretty darned good. Especially as a 105-450 on the A6300!

 

Two great additions to the arsenal. Thanks, Sony.

 

Dave

 

 

Edited June 11, 2019 by pierces

[zackiedawg]

I love seeing both lenses - covering two distinct ends of the spectrum with a good consumer long-reach zoom and a high-end pro long prime, both at 600mm.  The 200-600mm is clearly in my wheelhouse, while the 600mm F4 is as you say a lottery lens for me.

However, I am also one of those itching to see some kind of news about a new APS-C body...one tailored more to high-end semi-pro type shooting.  I care much more about that than a new lens at this point...I am still milking along my beloved A6300, but at over 3 years old and 160,000 shutter actuations, it's been used hard and I'd love to see a worthy replacement soon.  The A6500 wasn't worth it for me adding only IBIS, and the A6400 has some nice updates to the focus system, but unfortunately not much else - same smaller battery, same EVF resolution, and worst of all, LOSING the MR1 and MR2 dial positions which would have a serious detrimental effect on me.  I still want that baby APS-C A9!!

[pierces]

I'm sort of in the same place. A performance-oriented APS-C body to replace my A6300 as a second to the A7III is at the top of my list right now.

 

Even with the new lens, the telephoto question I mentioned before is below a good wide-angle zoom. My general shooting does not include much telephoto work and the 70-300 is filling the need nicely for now. I really shoot more wide than long. While I love the Rokinon 12mm f/2.0 on the A6300, The 12mm-24mm F/4 G just makes sense since it can be mounted on both cameras. 

 

BTW, in case you didn't notice in the press release, the 200-600 doesn't extend while zooming. That is huge for dust control. The 70-300 is sort of a heavy breather which is why I'm leaning toward the 70-200f/2.8 GM with a converter as a longer telephoto option. 

 

Another side note. Sony just registered a camera China. This usually happens 30-60 days before announcement. 

 

 

Dave

[tommui987]

35 minutes ago, pierces said:

I'm sort of in the same place. A performance-oriented APS-C body to replace my A6300 as a second to the A7III is at the top of my list right now.

Another side note. Sony just registered a camera China. This usually happens 30-60 days before announcement.

Dave

 

Hope it isn't another model A7 or A9!

[havoc315]

3 hours ago, zackiedawg said:

I love seeing both lenses - covering two distinct ends of the spectrum with a good consumer long-reach zoom and a high-end pro long prime, both at 600mm.  The 200-600mm is clearly in my wheelhouse, while the 600mm F4 is as you say a lottery lens for me.

However, I am also one of those itching to see some kind of news about a new APS-C body...one tailored more to high-end semi-pro type shooting.  I care much more about that than a new lens at this point...I am still milking along my beloved A6300, but at over 3 years old and 160,000 shutter actuations, it's been used hard and I'd love to see a worthy replacement soon.  The A6500 wasn't worth it for me adding only IBIS, and the A6400 has some nice updates to the focus system, but unfortunately not much else - same smaller battery, same EVF resolution, and worst of all, LOSING the MR1 and MR2 dial positions which would have a serious detrimental effect on me.  I still want that baby APS-C A9!!

 

With a 600mm native lens.. you might want to consider a camera like the A9 (24mp at 600mm is a match for your current 400mm on aps-c 24mp), or a Sony A7riii, which mostly does have a better AF system than the A6300. (except on the outer edges of the frame).

[havoc315]

On 6/7/2019 at 11:14 AM, pierces said:

 

Actually, I am no longer shocked at the pricing and no longer shake my head when these lofty units appear. I have learned that good lenses are expensive. I have also learned that great lenses are more expensive. Based on how long I had to wait for my 24-105 f/4 G, priciness is not necessarily a death sentence to sales if the quality is worth it. The wait times for the $1400 24mm f/1.4 GM seem to support the theory. I still respect the Sony 16-50 PZ kit lens for APS-C as a flawed but ingenious lens that will take excellent photos when one understands it's limitations. Same with the 28-70 FE kit lens. I have, however, learned that better lenses are worth the money. When I switched to the 18-105 f/4 G on the A6x00 bodies, I could see the difference. Not night and day, but I didn't have to tweak images as much. As nice as that lens is , the FE 24-105 f/4 G that is my current daily driver is a prime example of "you date your camera but you marry your lens". I can see it outliving several iterations of bodies until growing sensor resolutions force it into retirement. I still love to play with the $100 7artisans lenses on the A6300 and the Rokinon fisheye is a great little optic, but for a primary use lens, I now see the benefit of waiting a little longer and saving up for a better lens. I also see why a professional photographer will drop vast (to me) sums on equipment if they perceive value. 

 

Dave

 

Welcome to the lens snob club.

 

I'm of a divided mind and I go back and forth. For me, there is kind of a threshold. I'm not going to obsess over a tiny ounce of corner sharpness differences. But to me, a lens has to pass a certain threshold of sharpness, and then you look at other potential defects (CA, vignette, distortion). A lens like the 16-50 doesn't pass the threshold. The 24-105 does. 

So I'll look at my needs (or wants) for focal length and aperture.... So if the lens meets the focal length and aperture, and passes the basic threshold  of sharpness without other significant defects, then my primary considerations become price and size. So I'll take the Tamron 28-75/2.8 over the Sony GM 24-70/2.8... The GM has better IQ, but they both pass the basic threshold for me. I can live without the 4mm on the wide end of that lens (I use my 12-24 when I want wide), so size and price steer me to the Tamron. (I'm actually currently living with the Tamron 28-75 AND the Sony 24-105.. I really should get rid of 1 of them, but I just really like them both for different reasons.)

[pierces]

24 minutes ago, havoc315 said:

 

Welcome to the lens snob club.

 

I'm of a divided mind and I go back and forth. For me, there is kind of a threshold. I'm not going to obsess over a tiny ounce of corner sharpness differences. But to me, a lens has to pass a certain threshold of sharpness, and then you look at other potential defects (CA, vignette, distortion). A lens like the 16-50 doesn't pass the threshold. The 24-105 does. 

So I'll look at my needs (or wants) for focal length and aperture.... So if the lens meets the focal length and aperture, and passes the basic threshold  of sharpness without other significant defects, then my primary considerations become price and size. So I'll take the Tamron 28-75/2.8 over the Sony GM 24-70/2.8... The GM has better IQ, but they both pass the basic threshold for me. I can live without the 4mm on the wide end of that lens (I use my 12-24 when I want wide), so size and price steer me to the Tamron. (I'm actually currently living with the Tamron 28-75 AND the Sony 24-105.. I really should get rid of 1 of them, but I just really like them both for different reasons.)

 

 

Lens snob? Maybe a little.

 

I do love the 24-105. However, I am also fond of the 16-50PZ as a walkabout lens on the A6000. I think the reason we differ so much on this lens is that I shoot JPEG almost exclusively and pretty much all the time with the 16-50. This means that the distortion, CA and vignetting is corrected in-camera and I never really have to deal with it. The darned thing is just so compact and handy. The 16-50 is current on loan to my lovely granddaughter along with the A6000, so I currently have the all-manual 7artisans 25mm f/1.7 mounted as the pocketable option. Best $75 lens I have ever seen! 

 

I agree with the bang-for-the-buck threshold. If I were to decide on a f/2.8 normal zoom, the Tamron would be the way I would go. In assessing the 70-200 f/2.8 option, I have to consider that there are no third-party options in native mount and the AF integration is becoming so complex that it just may be worth the extra for the Sony GM, especially if I want a matched teleconverter. Big bang. Big bucks.

 

To compare my lens snobbery to the world of wine, I guess I would be a part time snob who isn't afraid to drink out of something in a brown paper bag on occasion. 🙂

 

 

Dave

[pierces]

2 hours ago, tommui987 said:

 

Hope it isn't another model A7 or A9!

 

Top guesses seem to be A9-II, A7000 (or whatever) or more remotely, an RX10-V.

 

I so want it to be the APS-C camera, but with a $1000 drop in the A9, maybe they are positioning?

 

Darn guessing games!

 

 

Dave

[havoc315]

29 minutes ago, pierces said:

 

 

Lens snob? Maybe a little.

 

I do love the 24-105. However, I am also fond of the 16-50PZ as a walkabout lens on the A6000. I think the reason we differ so much on this lens is that I shoot JPEG almost exclusively and pretty much all the time with the 16-50. This means that the distortion, CA and vignetting is corrected in-camera and I never really have to deal with it. The darned thing is just so compact and handy. The 16-50 is current on loan to my lovely granddaughter along with the A6000, so I currently have the all-manual 7artisans 25mm f/1.7 mounted as the pocketable option. Best $75 lens I have ever seen! 

 

I agree with the bang-for-the-buck threshold. If I were to decide on a f/2.8 normal zoom, the Tamron would be the way I would go. In assessing the 70-200 f/2.8 option, I have to consider that there are no third-party options in native mount and the AF integration is becoming so complex that it just may be worth the extra for the Sony GM, especially if I want a matched teleconverter. Big bang. Big bucks.

 

To compare my lens snobbery to the world of wine, I guess I would be a part time snob who isn't afraid to drink out of something in a brown paper bag on occasion. 🙂

 

 

Dave

 

My review of the 70-200/2.8 is coming. I have concerns mechanical concerns -- First copy I borrowed was totally defective. Had occasional AF issues with second copy. And have seen reports of mechanical failures.

 

But beyond that... I hated the lens. Not saying it's bad IQ but totally not worth the weight to me. Using handheld for a couple of hours, it definitely wore on my back. If I was shooting a basketball game, it very well may be a "need"

But for my uses, more for portraits... give me a good prime.

Highly recommend the Samyang 85/1.4, lots of bang for buck.

And I'm continuously tempted by the Sony 100/2.8 STF

 

And for the times I do need a telephoto zoom, most cases, the 70-200/4 is just fine. 

I shot 2 weddings in the last month -- 1 with the 70-200/2.8... it ended up being an indoor ceremony, after expecting it to be outdoors.

Then 1 with the 70-200/4 (and a 35/1.4 on second body).

 

While in theory, the 70-200/2.8 was a "need" for a low light indoor ceremony... I found so many of my photos were poorly composed, which I attribute to my arm getting fatigued from holding the heavy lens (causing major tilt of the horizon, or just shifting of the composition).

 

 

 

 

[zackiedawg]

1 hour ago, havoc315 said:

 

With a 600mm native lens.. you might want to consider a camera like the A9 (24mp at 600mm is a match for your current 400mm on aps-c 24mp), or a Sony A7riii, which mostly does have a better AF system than the A6300. (except on the outer edges of the frame).

 

I have considered - actually even before the 200-600mm announcement...it's tempting, especially at the lower price, but I'd still feel like reach-wise, I'd be running to stand still - I'm at 600mm now, I spend $3500 for the camera and $2,000 for the lens, and I'm still at 600mm.  While the A9 is undoubtedly better overall in focus, buffer, speed, etc - it won't really gain me too much in wildlife and birding as the A6300 is quite adept already for me - I don't miss much in-flight action now.  If I had the much denser 42MP sensor on full-frame, that would partially make up for the lost crop factor.  Whereas a new APS-C sensor with A9 performance and upgrades would give me the same 150-600mm range I have now with the 100-400mm lens, with at least 24MP if not more, AND the ability to add something like the 200-600mm to up that equivalent crop to 300mm to 900mm, PLUS it's compatible with the 1.4x TC I already have, so now we're talking 1,260mm with 24MP...or depending on what Sony does with the next APS-C sensor, maybe 28MP or 32MP.

 

If no A7xxx comes along at the next announcement and it is indeed another full-framer, I think I'd be leaning towards an A9 over the A6400.  But I'd definitely be leaning A7xxx over an A9...so I'm still hoping.

[havoc315]

11 minutes ago, zackiedawg said:

 

I have considered - actually even before the 200-600mm announcement...it's tempting, especially at the lower price, but I'd still feel like reach-wise, I'd be running to stand still - I'm at 600mm now, I spend $3500 for the camera and $2,000 for the lens, and I'm still at 600mm.  While the A9 is undoubtedly better overall in focus, buffer, speed, etc - it won't really gain me too much in wildlife and birding as the A6300 is quite adept already for me - I don't miss much in-flight action now.  If I had the much denser 42MP sensor on full-frame, that would partially make up for the lost crop factor.  Whereas a new APS-C sensor with A9 performance and upgrades would give me the same 150-600mm range I have now with the 100-400mm lens, with at least 24MP if not more, AND the ability to add something like the 200-600mm to up that equivalent crop to 300mm to 900mm, PLUS it's compatible with the 1.4x TC I already have, so now we're talking 1,260mm with 24MP...or depending on what Sony does with the next APS-C sensor, maybe 28MP or 32MP.

 

If no A7xxx comes along at the next announcement and it is indeed another full-framer, I think I'd be leaning towards an A9 over the A6400.  But I'd definitely be leaning A7xxx over an A9...so I'm still hoping.

 

Something to keep in mind that is harder to quantify -- While you are getting 600mm equivalent reach on the A6300, it's not the same 600mm you would get with a full frame camera. It's smaller denser pixels on the A6300, which will lead to higher *perceived* resolution on the full frame. 

Assuming an equal quality lens, you'll actually be able to crop the full frame image more. You'll also get more usable ISO, allowing use of faster shutter speeds.

 

Not saying those differences are enough to make up for the loss of the built-in 1.5 crop, but it does contribute.

 

 

[pierces]

34 minutes ago, havoc315 said:

 

My review of the 70-200/2.8 is coming. I have concerns mechanical concerns -- First copy I borrowed was totally defective. Had occasional AF issues with second copy. And have seen reports of mechanical failures.

 

But beyond that... I hated the lens. Not saying it's bad IQ but totally not worth the weight to me. Using handheld for a couple of hours, it definitely wore on my back. If I was shooting a basketball game, it very well may be a "need"

But for my uses, more for portraits... give me a good prime.

Highly recommend the Samyang 85/1.4, lots of bang for buck.

And I'm continuously tempted by the Sony 100/2.8 STF

 

And for the times I do need a telephoto zoom, most cases, the 70-200/4 is just fine. 

I shot 2 weddings in the last month -- 1 with the 70-200/2.8... it ended up being an indoor ceremony, after expecting it to be outdoors.

Then 1 with the 70-200/4 (and a 35/1.4 on second body).

 

While in theory, the 70-200/2.8 was a "need" for a low light indoor ceremony... I found so many of my photos were poorly composed, which I attribute to my arm getting fatigued from holding the heavy lens (causing major tilt of the horizon, or just shifting of the composition).

 

 

 

 

 

Portrait? I am finally ready to grab a portrait lens. The 24-105 does a pretty good job at 105mm - f/4 but not exactly a "portrait" lens. I looked at the Samyang/Rokinon but I'm also impressed by the Sony 85mm f/1.8. The 85mm GM lens is way above the BFTB threshold for me. I would lean towards the Rokinon based on your review if it handles signaling for Eye-AF well. Any input?

 

The weight of the 70-200 GM on the A7III is over a ½ pound lighter than my old A77 with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the battery grip on it. I never had an issue with the weight walking up and down the sidelines at football games. A lot of football games. Thirty plus years of weightlifting may have helped and I'm still more grizzly than gazelle. The f/2.8 when needed option and the ability to move to a 140mm-400mm f/5.6 by adding a 2x teleconverter with (reportedly) little impact on image quality is a compelling argument to me, though I am concerned about the mechanical issues you mentioned. Maybe waiting until next year no matter what my decision will resolve some of that and maybe native third-party options will materialize.

 

First world problems.

 

Dave

 

[havoc315]

29 minutes ago, pierces said:

 

Portrait? I am finally ready to grab a portrait lens. The 24-105 does a pretty good job at 105mm - f/4 but not exactly a "portrait" lens. I looked at the Samyang/Rokinon but I'm also impressed by the Sony 85mm f/1.8. The 85mm GM lens is way above the BFTB threshold for me. I would lean towards the Rokinon based on your review if it handles signaling for Eye-AF well. Any input?

 

The weight of the 70-200 GM on the A7III is over a ½ pound lighter than my old A77 with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the battery grip on it. I never had an issue with the weight walking up and down the sidelines at football games. A lot of football games. Thirty plus years of weightlifting may have helped and I'm still more grizzly than gazelle. The f/2.8 when needed option and the ability to move to a 140mm-400mm f/5.6 by adding a 2x teleconverter with (reportedly) little impact on image quality is a compelling argument to me, though I am concerned about the mechanical issues you mentioned. Maybe waiting until next year no matter what my decision will resolve some of that and maybe native third-party options will materialize.

 

First world problems.

 

Dave

 

 

Comparisons with the 85/1.8 in my review:

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/rokinon-samyang-85mm-f-1-4-review-for-sony/

 

The 85/1.8 is noticeably smaller. I haven't sold mine yet, because I might bring it on my next trip, and to reduce weight.

But the Samyang 85/1.4 is overall just a bit better, including the faster aperture.

 

Though, I shoot mostly couples and families -- I'm rarely shooting wide open at 1.4. Still, at 1.8-2.8, it's still a bit better than the 85/1.8.

 

Yes, eye-af works flawlessly. Attached was taken past weekend, at F1.8 on the Samyang 85/1.4.

 

 

 

[pierces]

Appreciate the info!

 

Dave