Sony to announce FE 16mm f/1.8 and FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 in February

[AlanF]

or the focal length

780mm f/8.4? Actually, I measured the front lens of the EF 400mm f/4 DOii to be 95mm, although it has the Big White format.

 

[Del Paso]

Yes, and f/7.1 is f/7.1. But somehow (to some people) f/6.3 was just peachy while f/7.1 was 'unusably dark', meaning the RF 100-500 was 'horrible' to say nothing of the RF 200-800. The point is that story will change once Sony launches a zoom lens with an f/8 in the maximum aperture...now, f/8 will be just peachy (because it's 800mm, so of course it can't be f/6.3, right?), and f/9 will be the new 'unusably dark'.

Edit: I see it's already begun.

A sony with F/8 maximum aperture?
Perfect, who needs more? The Internet will love this luminous optical marvel by sony.
Much better than f/7,1 darkness anyway.

 

[P-visie]

So it gives around 650mm of resolution with slightly more magnification. That's....very far from ideal. Also not sure that it performing similarly to an f11 lens with diffractive optics that costs half as much is a particularly big win for either of the lenses. Both of them are lacking resolution.

SAR just posted images of the full Sony 400-800 lens. It's a non-extending lens, looks a bit bigger than the 200-600. Weight as yet unknown but speculated to be around 2.5kg. Personally I'm really curious to find out the apertures at different points in the zoom range.

Do you have any actual experience with the RF200-800mm? Please provide some of your photo’s with evidence of the “very far from ideal” and “lacking resolution” of the RF200-800mm.

 

[Del Paso]

If you want to make price/quality comparisons, the RF 200-800mm at $1799 is very nearly as sharp in the centre as is the RF 800mm f/5.6 costing nearly 10x as much at $1699. The 200-800mm performs quite nicely at 800mm. Here is a centre crop of an image I took this week (1px of it = 1 px of original) processed from RAW with no added sharpening. I would not describe it as very far from ideal, but you might.


View attachment 222248

Just a beautiful little sparrow!
A perfect (and dead sharp) picture.

 

[P-visie]

A sony with F/8 maximum aperture?
Perfect, who needs more? The Internet will love this luminous optical marvel by sony.
Much better than f/7,1 darkness anyway.

Yes, the new Sony wonderlens comes with a complimentary torch to bring some light in the darkness of the cave dwellers.

 

[Dragon]

or the focal length

Equally possible. In the end, true focal length and T-stop are what really count.

 

[Dragon]

780mm f/8.4? Actually, I measured the front lens of the EF 400mm f/4 DOii to be 95mm, although it has the Big White format.

According to DXOMark, the EF 400mm DO II measures at T5, which is a pretty significant discrepancy from f/4. Could be losses in the DO or could be that the actual f number is a bit higher than f/4 (or both). Either way, the T stop is a bit farther from the f stop than the majority of lenses tested. DXO mark certainly has bias in their single number scores, but I have found the test results to be pretty accurate. BTW, I agree with you on the 200-800. I have found it to compete very well with my EF 800 f/5.6 L, which is arguably a sharper lens than then RF 800 f/5.6 L and the 200-800 certainly is a lot easier to handle that either of the primes. The zoom also can be used as a push-pull and that makes target finding so much easier.

 

[AlanF]

According to DXOMark, the EF 400mm DO II measures at T5, which is a pretty significant discrepancy from f/4. Could be losses in the DO or could be that the actual f number is a bit higher than f/4 (or both). Either way, the T stop is a bit farther from the f stop than the majority of lenses tested. DXO mark certainly has bias in their single number scores, but I have found the test results to be pretty accurate. BTW, I agree with you on the 200-800. I have found it to compete very well with my EF 800 f/5.6 L, which is arguably a sharper lens than then RF 800 f/5.6 L and the 200-800 certainly is a lot easier to handle that either of the primes. The zoom also can be used as a push-pull and that makes target finding so much easier.

I have always been struck by the high T of the DO II and had wondered if it was caused by the DO optics. The RF 200-800mm is actually 776mm f/9.34 fully extended. The RF 800 f/5.6 is measured at 780mm f/5.9. A big plus of the zoom for me is that focuses close enough for insect work, though I much prefer the 100-500mm for that.

 

[Dragon]

I have always been struck by the high T of the DO II and had wondered if it was caused by the DO optics. The RF 200-800mm is actually 776mm f/9.34 fully extended. The RF 800 f/5.6 is measured at 780mm f/5.9. A big plus of the zoom for me is that focuses close enough for insect work, though I much prefer the 100-500mm for that.

DO optics have gotten better and cheaper based on the the RF 600 f/11 and RF 800 f/11. I suspect we will see that tech used more in the future, but Canon has their own timeline, so when is anybody's guess.

 

[mimbu]

If you want to make price/quality comparisons, the RF 200-800mm at $1799 is very nearly as sharp in the centre as is the RF 800mm f/5.6 costing nearly 10x as much at $1699. The 200-800mm performs quite nicely at 800mm.

I still cannot believe that Canon took an EF 400/2.8 and bolted on a permanent 2x TC with a flange adapter and sells it for $17k as an "RF" lens. The Canon of 30 years ago would never have done such a thing. And Canon users would have laughed uproariously at any company who tried to pull such shenanigans. Rightly so. It's an embarrassing kludge of a lens from the company that was once the market leader in innovation and cutting edge products.

The fact that it can barely outperform a (relatively) cheap zoom that itself is a weak performer really says everything.

 

[mimbu]

Do you have any actual experience with the RF200-800mm? Please provide some of your photo’s with evidence of the “very far from ideal” and “lacking resolution” of the RF200-800mm.

Did you read the comment I replied to? Because that's the guy with the evidence to back it up. I wouldn't spend $2k on that lens myself.

I don't know what has happened to Canon. Tiny Nikon is walking all over them when it comes to super teles. How did Canon let this happen?

 

[P-visie]

Did you read the comment I replied to? Because that's the guy with the evidence to back it up. I wouldn't spend $2k on that lens myself.

I don't know what has happened to Canon. Tiny Nikon is walking all over them when it comes to super teles. How did Canon let this happen?

Yes I did read @AlanF comments and I did check his extensive testing results. And, unlike you, I have examined actual images I have taken with the RF200-800mm and find the details and sharpness very far from your claims of “lacking resolution” and “far from ideal”.
Nikon does not have a zoomlens that zooms to 800mm and the 800mm pf lens is almost 3 times as expensive as the RF200-800mm.
How much marketshare did Nikon gain with their “affordable” telelenses?

 

[AlanF]

Yes I did read @AlanF comments and I did check his extensive testing results. And, unlike you, I have examined actual images I have taken with the RF200-800mm and find the details and sharpness very far from your claims of “lacking resolution” and “far from ideal”.
Nikon does not have a zoomlens that zooms to 800mm and the 800mm pf lens is almost 3 times as expensive as the RF200-800mm.
How much marketshare did Nikon gain with their “affordable” telelenses?

The RF 200-800mm does its job well enough and I have enjoyed taking 1000s of sharp images of birds and posting many on the birds threads here so their quality can be readily seen. Unfortunately, some people try and make “the perfect the enemy of the good”. The lens isn’t perfect but is more than good enough and gives great results. The Nikon 800mm f/6.3 is a really good lens and has quite a few happy users. But, it’s not the lens for me as an 800mm prime doesn’t have the flexibility of zoom and close focus I need and is heavier.

 

[AlanF]

It's worth mentioning that bird photography is best in decent light, which brings out the contrast, colour and detail of the plumage. And, in the brightest light you may have to underexpose not to bleach highlights. When the bird is large enough in the frame, you often have to stop down to keep enough of it in focus. So a narrow aperture is no real disadvantage for most of the time. A wide aperture is nice on occasion for isolating the subject , but that is becoming less important as you can do it if you want in post in PS by selecting the subject and blurring the back ground. Also in poor light, modern noise reduction has greatly extended the usable iso range. So, you have to decide what is the best compromise for you.

 

[docsmith]

Another RF 200-800 lens owner here. Not perfect, but really very very good. Alan's example is better, as he mentions, you need some light. But here is another:



Getting back to the potential Sony 400-800, I am a bit surprised there is no discussion of the focal length. 400-800? It isn't the end of the world. I like options and here is another option for Sony users. But, if that was a Canon lens, losing 200-400 would be a factor I would definitely consider. Even with the RF 200-800 vs RF 100-500, I completely understand those that would favor the RF 100-500 for having the 100-200 mm focal lengths. It is very much a tradeoff of one very usable focal length range for another.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

SAR just posted images of the full Sony 400-800 lens. It's a non-extending lens, looks a bit bigger than the 200-600. Weight as yet unknown but speculated to be around 2.5kg. Personally I'm really curious to find out the apertures at different points in the zoom range.

Thx for letting us know. From the first look of it, I'm honestly not impressed at all or even underwhelmed. Starting at 400mm this lens should be at least under 2kg (the RF 200-800mm is 2.05 kg) and given Sony usually design pretty lightweight lenses and sometimes extremely lightweight (28-70mm F2 comes to mind) this just feels wrong. More than 2.6kg on a lens that misses out on the 200-400mm range? Even though it is G-lens (200-600mm is as well) I don´t think it will perform better than the Canon version... but, we will wait and see.

 

[P-visie]

Another RF 200-800 lens owner here. Not perfect, but really very very good. Alan's example is better, as he mentions, you need some light. But here is another:

View attachment 222257

Getting back to the potential Sony 400-800, I am a bit surprised there is no discussion of the focal length. 400-800? It isn't the end of the world. I like options and here is another option for Sony users. But, if that was a Canon lens, losing 200-400 would be a factor I would definitely consider. Even with the RF 200-800 vs RF 100-500, I completely understand those that would favor the RF 100-500 for having the 100-200 mm focal lengths. It is very much a tradeoff of one very usable focal length range for another.

Beautiful picture. You and @AlanF must great photographers to create such good bird pictures with such a useless poor quality lens .

As others have pointed out: Sony also have the 200-600mm zoom, making the new lens 400-800mm (rather than starting at 200mm) probably avoids one lens cannibalizing sales from the other.

 

[Swissbob]

I do use both, 100-500 and 200-800, I Most of the time prefer the bigger one.

400-800 sounds a bit strange, 400-1000 6.3-9 would be more interesting.

 

[masterpix]

Sony will join pretty much every camera manufacturer in announcing new wares for the CP+ show in late February. Both rumored lenses look like they'll be the kind of lenses that will be popular.

Read the full article

The 200-800 is still muhc more favorable, it will allow one to have "one wildlife lens" when goes out to take picture, while 400-800 is rather narrow in range. there are some occasions where the need (even with little birds) is to go below 400 to capture the whole scene.

 

[AlanF]

I do use both, 100-500 and 200-800, I Most of the time prefer the bigger one.

400-800 sounds a bit strange, 400-1000 6.3-9 would be more interesting.

And much heavier, with a front element of 112mm, even longer and far more expensive.