FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Sony 200-600 for birding

Page  <1 2345>
Author
skm.sa100 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 January 2009
Country: United States
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Posts: 4083
Post Options Post Options   Quote skm.sa100 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2020 at 20:01
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:


hmmmm.... the 600/11 I mentioned was not long enough?


I suppose it might be but for an extra $200, if I get an extra 200mm that might be interesting.

I've never had a situation where I'm too close and have to zoom out to get a pic.
But, yes, 600mm should be reasonably long enough.

I can hand hold 600mm even on APS-C but that's on a budget 600mm.
Not sure if 800mm is too long for hand holding and how it might actually work out in practice.


Edited by skm.sa100 - 21 December 2020 at 20:04
More Dyxumer, less photographer.
 



Back to Top
dCap View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 August 2005
Country: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 6124
Post Options Post Options   Quote dCap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 December 2020 at 20:09
Originally posted by Brownie Brownie wrote:

Originally posted by dCap dCap wrote:

This helped me rule out the very highly regarded 50-200/2.8-4 (I just don't need a long lens for what I enjoy shooting).   


Yeah, but that 50-200 is a 'cold dead hands' lens. It's not all that big nor heavy, about half of the 100-400, and the IQ is so good it can be cropped when necessary. A 33% crop to get it to a 300mm (600), and even a 50% to get it to 400mm(800) if I'm careful. I would rather own that lens than any other in M-4/3 mount.


I used to have the wonderful 12-35/2.8 (newer, II version). Then upgraded to the Leica 12-60/2.8-4 when I found one absolute MINT. I prefer the 12-60. And I was close to getting the matching 8-18/2.8-4 as a challenge. I often find '24' to be too wide (prefer '28'), so knew 8-18 (16-36) would be something to make me think different.

But, I know I'd end up lusting after the 50-200/2.8-4 though. So did some (no camera in hand) test walks near some wading Little Egrets and Oyster Catchers I have an easy walk from home. I've never shot birds, only Robins in my garden before I moved. So have zero birding skillz. Got nice and close ... but remembered why I quit and just enjoyed watching them. Little Egret will ignore you if you mimic their type of movements and don't approach straight on. I'm sticking to my wides/normals.
Walk out if it doesn't feel right
I can tell you're only lying
If you've got something better tonight
Then don't mess up my mind with your crying
Just Walk Out In The Rain
Eric Clapton, 1978
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3832
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 December 2020 at 09:09
Originally posted by skm.sa100 skm.sa100 wrote:



I've never had a situation where I'm too close and have to zoom out to get a pic.
But, yes, 600mm should be reasonably long enough.

Had plenty of situations where the lens would not focus close enough when the bird hopped away from the branches that were part-concealing it to an open branch near me. Gave up the older FF lenses with their 4m+ MFD and went for the Sony APS-C ones that focus to 2m or less. Not sure how close the ones you are talking about focus.
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A7Rii, A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras ...
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 11909
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 December 2020 at 08:21
This might be of interest, this youtube video compares the Olympus EM-1x and the new 150-400 Pro compared to the Canon EOS R6 and the Canon EF 800/5.6. It also shows the capabilities of the systems.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
nandbytes View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London
Status: Offline
Posts: 3266
Post Options Post Options   Quote nandbytes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 December 2020 at 08:34
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

This might be of interest, this youtube video compares the Olympus EM-1x and the new 150-400 Pro compared to the Canon EOS R6 and the Canon EF 800/5.6. It also shows the capabilities of the systems.


I don't see a huge lot of gain if any in buying the new Oly 150-400mm over A7RIV+200-600mm when it costs so much.
my flickr
A1, A7C
Back to Top
SnowFella View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 21 April 2013
Country: Australia
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Posts: 2524
Post Options Post Options   Quote SnowFella Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 December 2020 at 08:44
Local "hardcore" birder here just recently sold off his whole Canon gear (1DxII and 500 f/4) among others and went Olympus. Though he went with the 300mm f/4 and TC's rather than the 150-400.
 



Back to Top
nandbytes View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London
Status: Offline
Posts: 3266
Post Options Post Options   Quote nandbytes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 December 2020 at 09:15
Originally posted by SnowFella SnowFella wrote:

Local "hardcore" birder here just recently sold off his whole Canon gear (1DxII and 500 f/4) among others and went Olympus. Though he went with the 300mm f/4 and TC's rather than the 150-400.


because its about 3 times cheaper and you don't gain much by spending 3 times more if you care mostly about the long end. If anything 300mm f4+1.4x gives you tad more reach and light than 150-400mm at long end.

though I think Olympus missed a trick by not making a lighter 300mm f4 like the Nikon 300mm f4 PF lens.
my flickr
A1, A7C
Back to Top
nandbytes View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London
Status: Offline
Posts: 3266
Post Options Post Options   Quote nandbytes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 December 2020 at 09:27
I am not really sure how many people will spend £6.5K on a M43 lens. I was actually interested in it till they released the price!
my flickr
A1, A7C
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 3367
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 December 2020 at 12:22
All of my A-mount cameras have focused at f/11--not very well. Mirrorless cameras will switch to pure contrast-detect.

A Four-Thirds sensor appropriate for those lenses doesn't exist. 20MP of aliasing is bad. If the lens doesn't alias then the lens is not sharp.

I kinda wish there were mirrorless AF mirror lenses. The Sigma 600mm F8 has fairly close focusing. It is nicer to walk around with than the 200-600G. The diffractive optics used by Canon have drawbacks too.
Sony A7RIV NEX-5T HVL-F45RM LA-EA5 Metabones-IV Sigma MC-11 Yongnuo EF-E II TLT ROKR MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9 AF-P/Q
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 11909
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 December 2020 at 12:30
Originally posted by SnowFella SnowFella wrote:

Local "hardcore" birder here just recently sold off his whole Canon gear (1DxII and 500 f/4) among others and went Olympus. Though he went with the 300mm f/4 and TC's rather than the 150-400.
Looking at the video he better got the Canon R5 or R6 for the better birding AF. Want to go lighter? The EF 400/4 DO (with extenders when needed) is a nice lens, or the EF 600/11 and 800/11 for an even lighter set up.

TBH, I am a bit disappointed in the AF of the Olympus. I can understand wildlife photographers (incl. birders) considering m34 as a lighter option. But then the AF should be competitive with Sony and Canon offerings.

Both Olympus and Panasonic have cheaper 100-400 options that are 200-800 equivalent and therefore more like the 200-600 I guess. I you're a serious wildlife/bird photographer, the cost of this professional 150-400 might be interesting - only if the AF was better.....
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
LAbernethy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2015
Country: Canada
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
Post Options Post Options   Quote LAbernethy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 December 2020 at 23:32
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Originally posted by SnowFella SnowFella wrote:

Local "hardcore" birder here just recently sold off his whole Canon gear (1DxII and 500 f/4) among others and went Olympus. Though he went with the 300mm f/4 and TC's rather than the 150-400.


TBH, I am a bit disappointed in the AF of the Olympus. I can understand wildlife photographers (incl. birders) considering m34 as a lighter option. But then the AF should be competitive with Sony and Canon offerings.



I found the Olympus AF performance to be better than most of the Sony offerings at a third of the price. Paired with the Olympus 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7II ED MSC lens it makes for a very light and portable kit.
Back to Top
LAbernethy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2015
Country: Canada
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
Post Options Post Options   Quote LAbernethy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 December 2020 at 00:20
Originally posted by Brownie Brownie wrote:

Originally posted by dCap dCap wrote:

This helped me rule out the very highly regarded 50-200/2.8-4 (I just don't need a long lens for what I enjoy shooting).   


Yeah, but that 50-200 is a 'cold dead hands' lens. It's not all that big nor heavy, about half of the 100-400, and the IQ is so good it can be cropped when necessary. A 33% crop to get it to a 300mm (600), and even a 50% to get it to 400mm(800) if I'm careful. I would rather own that lens than any other in M-4/3 mount.

The Olympus Zuiko Digital 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 is a nice lens and paired with the EC-14 or EC-20 teleconverter it has great reach but adding the Micro 4/3"s adapter it just becomes unwieldy.
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3832
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 December 2020 at 14:06
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

All of my A-mount cameras have focused at f/11--not very well. Mirrorless cameras will switch to pure contrast-detect.

A Four-Thirds sensor appropriate for those lenses doesn't exist. 20MP of aliasing is bad. If the lens doesn't alias then the lens is not sharp.

I kinda wish there were mirrorless AF mirror lenses. The Sigma 600mm F8 has fairly close focusing. It is nicer to walk around with than the 200-600G. The diffractive optics used by Canon have drawbacks too.


I have (or have tried) quite a few mirror lenses. Very few offer a typical performance much better than a zoom lens of half the FL. The Kenko 400mm is actually pretty good, and if you're prepared to sacrifice the close-focus end you can fit it to E-mount with a thin adapter and still get infinity, but you will struggle to see much more actual detail than the 55-210 OSS, and a good 300mm AF zoom will usually beat it.

A really neat MF mirror lens I have is the 300mm f5.6 Super Paragon which is pretty sharp and the same size as the Minolta 50mm f2.8 macro; it's quite fun to have a 300mm lens on the A58 which looks like a normal 50mm. But by the time you've adapted it to FE-mount it's not that small.

Edited by Miranda F - 30 December 2020 at 14:09
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A7Rii, A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras ...
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 11909
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 December 2020 at 14:56
Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:

I found the Olympus AF performance to be better than most of the Sony offerings at a third of the price. Paired with the Olympus 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7II ED MSC lens it makes for a very light and portable kit.
What cameras? That makes a huge difference...
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > E-mount lenses Page  <1 2345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.