The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

dancook said:
I bought a 200-600 yesterday morning to photograph a competitive cricket match, I was not happy with the sharpness when I checked at 100% - but perhaps it was atmospheric disturbance, so this morning I did some 'proper' tests. Shot from the same position, cropped to match (600mm has advantage in cropping)

I discovered the 200-600 @ 600mm f6.3 is not as sharp as the 100-400 f5.6 even after it's been cropped in to match - which I assume means I could have shot the cricket on my 100-400 and go sharper images even if I needed to crop.

near = about 10 feet
far = about 20 feet

A1108456 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

A1108454 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

A1108458 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

A1108459 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

with these kind of results i'd be better off shooting 100-400 and cropping.
Click to expand...
That was my opinion too, plus I didn't want the extra 1kg weight of the 200-600mm. Also, from my experience using the 1.4x TC on the 100-400mm is sharper than using the 100-400mm and cropping to match, so unless you want the extra light then the 100-400mm with 1.4TC makes more sense than the 200-600mm to me, except for the massive cost difference of course.
 
OCHW said:
Hi guys i have the sony A1 , the 24mm 1.4 GM AND 50MM GM 1.2 would it be worth getting the 35mm GM 1.4 and keeping 24
Click to expand...

Nice line up. Those 3 would be my dream setup. But it really depends on what/how you shoot. Personally the 35 is my most used focal length.
 
snerkler said:
That was my opinion too, plus I didn't want the extra 1kg weight of the 200-600mm. Also, from my experience using the 1.4x TC on the 100-400mm is sharper than using the 100-400mm and cropping to match, so unless you want the extra light then the 100-400mm with 1.4TC makes more sense than the 200-600mm to me, except for the massive cost difference of course.
Click to expand...

well if this is just how the lens is, then LCE might not humour me with a refund :(
 
dancook said:
well if this is just how the lens is, then LCE might not humour me with a refund :(
Click to expand...
Of course there can be sample variation, but I've seen similar results posted. I guess when you get that extra reach for 2/3 of the cost there has to be compromises, but I guess it depends on what you're shooting. For birders the 200-600mm will likely make more sense as you need all the reach you can get and crop heavily.

In an ideal world I'd have a 400mm f2.8 and use TC's when I need to ;)
 
OCHW said:
Hi guys i have the sony A1 , the 24mm 1.4 GM AND 50MM GM 1.2 would it be worth getting the 35mm GM 1.4 and keeping 24
Click to expand...
As said, nice outfit. Yes, I'd have thought the 35 would sit well with them, depending on what you shoot.
 
snerkler said:
Of course there can be sample variation, but I've seen similar results posted. I guess when you get that extra reach for 2/3 of the cost there has to be compromises, but I guess it depends on what you're shooting. For birders the 200-600mm will likely make more sense as you need all the reach you can get and crop heavily.

In an ideal world I'd have a 400mm f2.8 and use TC's when I need to ;)
Click to expand...

Getting a refund :)
 
OCHW said:
Hi guys i have the sony A1 , the 24mm 1.4 GM AND 50MM GM 1.2 would it be worth getting the 35mm GM 1.4 and keeping 24
Click to expand...

I think 24 and 50mm make a nice pair if you want to head out with just two lenses but if I was going to take just one lens it might be a 35mm. 35 and either 24 or 50mm maybe don't make such a good pair, imo. Three (relatively) big fat lenses would be a bit too much for me to take out all together but if your bag is big enough and your neck and back can stand the strain then why not?
 
dancook said:
I bought a 200-600 yesterday morning to photograph a competitive cricket match, I was not happy with the sharpness when I checked at 100% - but perhaps it was atmospheric disturbance, so this morning I did some 'proper' tests. Shot from the same position, cropped to match (600mm has advantage in cropping)

I discovered the 200-600 @ 600mm f6.3 is not as sharp as the 100-400 f5.6 even after it's been cropped in to match - which I assume means I could have shot the cricket on my 100-400 and go sharper images even if I needed to crop.

near = about 10 feet
far = about 20 feet

A1108456 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

A1108454 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

A1108458 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

A1108459 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

with these kind of results i'd be better off shooting 100-400 and cropping.
Click to expand...

you do not fully explain how you got these images i.e. testing method could you please explain?
Ideally what you would do is.
shoot 100-400mm in APS-C mode if you wish. don't change position, shoot with 200-600mm from same position (FF mode). downsize your result from 200-600mm to the resolution of you 100-400mm i.e. about 21mp if its the A1. then compare crops.
If 100-400mm is still fair bit sharper then you have a lemon bad copy

snerkler said:
That was my opinion too, plus I didn't want the extra 1kg weight of the 200-600mm. Also, from my experience using the 1.4x TC on the 100-400mm is sharper than using the 100-400mm and cropping to match, so unless you want the extra light then the 100-400mm with 1.4TC makes more sense than the 200-600mm to me, except for the massive cost difference of course.
Click to expand...

it doesn't really. I had 100-400+1.4x and 200-600mm. 200-600mm is definitely better unless you have a bad copy of 200-600mm.
 
Last edited:
OCHW said:
Hi guys i have the sony A1 , the 24mm 1.4 GM AND 50MM GM 1.2 would it be worth getting the 35mm GM 1.4 and keeping 24
Click to expand...

I personally would buy something like 135GM, but don't really know what you shoot so its hard to suggest.
they are all good lenses... and you can crop your 24mm to 35mm and still have plenty pixels left.
 
A1, 25GM and 50GM.

I wouldn't go straight to the 35GM for a more even focal coverage, I would go for an 85 or 135 next but honestly......you should know what you like and thus what you need.
 
nandbytes said:
you do not fully explain how you got these images i.e. testing method could you please explain?
Ideally what you would do is.
shoot 100-400mm in APS-C mode if you wish. don't change position, shoot with 200-600mm from same position (FF mode). downsize your result from 200-600mm to the resolution of you 100-400mm i.e. about 21mp if its the A1. then compare crops.
If 100-400mm is still fair bit sharper then you have a lemon bad copy



it doesn't really. I had 100-400+1.4x and 200-600mm. 200-600mm is definitely better unless you have a bad copy of 200-600mm.
Click to expand...

I sat on a bench, rest my arms on a table with the camera and shot at 1/2000th - I changed lenses and took the shot, wide open and fully zoomed.

I then cropped to the same portion on the suncream bottle, so obviously the 400mm is cropped more heavily.

Yet it is much sharper, particularly when i moved the bottle further away and repeated.

I exported them to 1000px - so they are all downsized

Either way - it shows if I were to take the same shot from the same position, and crop the 100-400mm to match the reach of 600mm, it would be better in image quality.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
you do not fully explain how you got these images i.e. testing method could you please explain?
Ideally what you would do is.
shoot 100-400mm in APS-C mode if you wish. don't change position, shoot with 200-600mm from same position (FF mode). downsize your result from 200-600mm to the resolution of you 100-400mm i.e. about 21mp if its the A1. then compare crops.
If 100-400mm is still fair bit sharper then you have a lemon bad copy



it doesn't really. I had 100-400+1.4x and 200-600mm. 200-600mm is definitely better unless you have a bad copy of 200-600mm.
Click to expand...
And this is part of the issue, different people get different results so it's always best to try for yourself. Of course this doesn't negate a bad copy, unless you try another one.

With regards to your method of testing sharpness I remember you suggesting this method to me, but I'm questioning which way would be best in the real world? In the real world you are only interested in the final image and if the 100-400mm looks better cropped than the 200-600mm uncropped then what does it matter if you downsize or not? I always output my images at full resolution so I don't see what benefit I'd get at exporting with a smaller file size/resolution?
 
snerkler said:
And this is part of the issue, different people get different results so it's always best to try for yourself. Of course this doesn't negate a bad copy, unless you try another one.

With regards to your method of testing sharpness I remember you suggesting this method to me, but I'm questioning which way would be best in the real world? In the real world you are only interested in the final image and if the 100-400mm looks better cropped than the 200-600mm uncropped then what does it matter if you downsize or not? I always output my images at full resolution so I don't see what benefit I'd get at exporting with a smaller file size/resolution?
Click to expand...

You're all seeing the labels at the same size, so of course they've been downsized to match - the 400mm is a heavier crop, but it's got the same pixel dimension on your monitor right now.
 
dancook said:
You're all seeing the labels at the same size, so of course they've been downsized to match - the 400mm is a heavier crop, but it's got the same pixel dimension on your monitor right now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get that (y). My point was though is for most users needs you want to see if you're going to be better off using the 100-400mm cropped, or the 200-600mm uncropped so no need to downsize to see which will work best for you in the real world (y) I hope I'm making sense :lol:

I've just been doing some more reading around and some are saying that the 200-600mm doesn't stand up as well with the higher MP cameras so maybe your A1 is showing it up more? The only way you'll know if yours is a lemon or not is by getting another, but if the next one is the same will they take it back?
 
snerkler said:
I've just been doing some more reading around and some are saying that the 200-600mm doesn't stand up as well with the higher MP cameras so maybe your A1 is showing it up more? The only way you'll know if yours is a lemon or not is by getting another, but if the next one is the same will they take it back?
Click to expand...

I've seen some sharp examples of the lens, and I am certainly not getting that.

London Camera Exchange won't entertain it, the first thing they said as I came into the store was 'there's nothing wrong with that lens'
 
dancook said:
I've seen some sharp examples of the lens, and I am certainly not getting that.

London Camera Exchange won't entertain it, the first thing they said as I came into the store was 'there's nothing wrong with that lens'
Click to expand...
Are you going to try one from somewhere else? Like you've just said I've seen some really good examples, and there's a lot of varying opinions on which is sharper. When I tried them both the 100-400mm was the better of the two, but now I'm questioning whether this was just sample variation too. TBH, either way I don't want the weight of the 200-600mm (y)
 
hi thanks all ready have the 135mm gm and the 200-600mm as well shoot all differnt things models etc was looking to get into street as well thats why was thinking about the 35mm
 
snerkler said:
Are you going to try one from somewhere else? Like you've just said I've seen some really good examples, and there's a lot of varying opinions on which is sharper. When I tried them both the 100-400mm was the better of the two, but now I'm questioning whether this was just sample variation too. TBH, either way I don't want the weight of the 200-600mm (y)
Click to expand...

No I'm not, I delivered the 200-600 shots to the client - for normal viewing they are acceptable, like when slightly off-focus image can be acceptable if viewed small enough.

I now know that the 100-400 cropped to match those images would have been better that what I have delivered, so I might as well stick with that for the occasional time I need the reach.

Like this image, does not stand up to to any zooming but it'll be ok!

cricket by Daniel Cook, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
And this is part of the issue, different people get different results so it's always best to try for yourself. Of course this doesn't negate a bad copy, unless you try another one.

With regards to your method of testing sharpness I remember you suggesting this method to me, but I'm questioning which way would be best in the real world? In the real world you are only interested in the final image and if the 100-400mm looks better cropped than the 200-600mm uncropped then what does it matter if you downsize or not? I always output my images at full resolution so I don't see what benefit I'd get at exporting with a smaller file size/resolution?
Click to expand...

yes it does matter because you will have a better reach as result of having a longer lens with good sharpness. if you are dismissing a lens based on bad testing method you are simply lying to yourself (which is fine by me and makes no difference to me but if that were the case you wouldn't be asking on this forum and I wouldn't be telling you otherwise ;) )
if you are trying to establish if a lens is technically sound then you should test it appropriately.
 
nandbytes said:
yes it does matter because you will have a better reach as result of having a longer lens with good sharpness. if you are dismissing a lens based on bad testing method you are simply lying to yourself (which is fine by me and makes no difference to me but if that were the case you wouldn't be asking on this forum and I wouldn't be telling you otherwise ;) )
if you are trying to establish if a lens is technically sound then you should test it appropriately.
Click to expand...

All I am testing is if the 200-600 lens is worth using instead of my 100-400, and it is not. Since I can crop the 400mm to match the 600mm with superior results.
 
dancook said:
I sat on a bench, rest my arms on a table with the camera and shot at 1/2000th - I changed lenses and took the shot, wide open and fully zoomed.

I then cropped to the same portion on the suncream bottle, so obviously the 400mm is cropped more heavily.

Yet it is much sharper, particularly when i moved the bottle further away and repeated.

I exported them to 1000px - so they are all downsized

Either way - it shows if I were to take the same shot from the same position, and crop the 100-400mm to match the reach of 600mm, it would be better in image quality.
Click to expand...

sounds like you might have a bad copy. While 100-400mm is tad bit sharper the difference is mainly in the corners than centre frame. In the "APS-C region" of the frame there is barely any difference IMO. So if 100-400mm cropped is better than 200-600mm then you do not have a good copy.
 
Its very hard to find a comparison it seems the closest I can find is these two sharpness measurements:

200-600mm sharpness measurements:

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS - Review / Test Report
www.opticallimits.com www.opticallimits.com

100-400mm sharpness measurements:
www.ephotozine.com

Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 G Master OSS Review

John Riley reviews the new Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 G Master OSS telephoto zoom lens for E Mount Sony cameras.
www.ephotozine.com www.ephotozine.com

Even allowing for some differences in testing you can see that in the centre 200-600mm is mostly on similar levels @600mm to 100-400mm @400mm. So if you have good copies of both lenses, the 200-600mm should net you better results than cropping down from 100-400mm at the very least in the centre of the frame.
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
I've seen some sharp examples of the lens, and I am certainly not getting that.

London Camera Exchange won't entertain it, the first thing they said as I came into the store was 'there's nothing wrong with that lens'
Click to expand...
Do you not have any protection under the Consumer Rights Act? I don't think a retailer simply saying "there's nothing wrong with that lens" and rejecting your request for refund or replacement would stand up to legal scrutiny.
 
footman said:
Do you not have any protection under the Consumer Rights Act? I don't think a retailer simply saying "there's nothing wrong with that lens" and rejecting your request for refund or replacement would stand up to legal scrutiny.
Click to expand...
LCE will take back bad copies and even cover return delivery for it.

Edit:
Ah it looks like it was bought directly from the store.... hmm.... may be it might be hard returning it for that reason then
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
I've seen some sharp examples of the lens, and I am certainly not getting that.

London Camera Exchange won't entertain it, the first thing they said as I came into the store was 'there's nothing wrong with that lens'
Click to expand...

That sounds like they already knew something was wrong and were expecting you!
 
The A7c, 6 months on...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywBsFtltFwQ


My own opinion, and I accept that a lot of people love this camera, is that it's a missed opportunity to move away from the A6xxx layout and as one blogger said... as the whole internet says in union "add a front dial Sony." And then there's the EFCS, 1/4000 limit for the mechanical shutter and other things. In the unlikely event they go this way with the A7 series when mine konks I'll be buying something else, anything else.
 
footman said:
Do you not have any protection under the Consumer Rights Act? I don't think a retailer simply saying "there's nothing wrong with that lens" and rejecting your request for refund or replacement would stand up to legal scrutiny.
Click to expand...
nandbytes said:
LCE will take back bad copies and even cover return delivery for it.

Edit:
Ah it looks like it was bought directly from the store.... hmm.... may be it might be hard returning it for that reason then
Click to expand...
gman said:
That sounds like they already knew something was wrong and were expecting you!
Click to expand...

I bought instore yesterday morning, this morning I phoned ahead about the lens, emailed samples, and drove in to show them.

They did offer me a refund regardless of what they thought, not that they tested the lens.

I took the refund this morning :) sorry you may have missed that post.
 
OCHW said:
hi thanks all ready have the 135mm gm and the 200-600mm as well shoot all differnt things models etc was looking to get into street as well thats why was thinking about the 35mm
Click to expand...

Then go for it, if you have the cash and want to plug the 35mm hole in your line up then it's the best. Considering what else you have, I would just get it.

Join the club.

hPe8ooM.jpg
 
Raymond Lin said:
Then go for it, if you have the cash and want to plug the 35mm hole in your line up then it's the best. Considering what else you have, I would just get it.

Join the club.

hPe8ooM.jpg
Click to expand...

It is really the best 35mm lens I have used, then again I have never used the canon 35Lii. then againnmost 35mm f1.4 lenses I used on e-mount weren't great one way or the other.
 
nandbytes said:
yes it does matter because you will have a better reach as result of having a longer lens with good sharpness. if you are dismissing a lens based on bad testing method you are simply lying to yourself (which is fine by me and makes no difference to me but if that were the case you wouldn't be asking on this forum and I wouldn't be telling you otherwise ;) )
if you are trying to establish if a lens is technically sound then you should test it appropriately.
Click to expand...
But that’s what’s frying my noodle, surely if I want to know which is giving me the best final I want to compare the best resolution image that each way can provide, therefore if I’m downsizing the 200-600mm it’s not the best it can be?
 
snerkler said:
But that’s what’s frying my noodle, surely if I want to know which is giving me the best final I want to compare the best resolution image that each way can provide, therefore if I’m downsizing the 200-600mm it’s not the best it can be?
Click to expand...

you are correct, downsizing 200-600mm is not the best it can be. I wouldn't have kept it if I had to downsize to get a half-decent result.
But if we are technically comparing lenses to establish how good or bad individual copies are then its best to do it in as best method as possible to understand the full extent of the differences.

Once you have established a lens is good or bad (copy) then its really down to the user. otherwise we are just debating over possibilities. basically nail down one of the variables, make sure its up to the job technically speaking then you can concentrate on your art and skill. otherwise return it.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
It is really the best 35mm lens I have used, then again I have never used the canon 35Lii. then againnmost 35mm f1.4 lenses I used on e-mount weren't great one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Until I put the Sony through in a proper environment I still put the Canon L mk2 the best, but not quite when adapted on the Sony mount though.
 
nandbytes said:
you are correct, downsizing 200-600mm is not the best it can be. I wouldn't have kept it if I had to downsize to get a half-decent result.
But if we are technically comparing lenses to establish how good or bad individual copies are then its best to do it in as best method as possible to understand the full extent of the differences.

Once you have established a lens is good or bad (copy) then its really down to the user. otherwise we are just debating over possibilities. basically nail down one of the variables, make sure its up to the job technically speaking then you can concentrate on your art and skill. otherwise return it.
Click to expand...
Ok so we’re looking at different things here I think (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top