p.20 #2 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
CPWarner wrote:
Did you do back to back comparisons with the 300mm f/2.8+2X and your 400-800mm? That might be useful. It could certainly rule out atmospheric distortion if the 300mm+TC produces superior results. One other thing to try is to make sure you have the full time DMF turned off. I have had issues with bumping that and messing up my shots. Try shooting with that off.
This morning I did a comparison between the 400-800mm and the 300mm with the 2x TC. Everything was set up on a tripod with a ball head. I focused on a static subject (a neighbor's mailbox) and shot with AF-C using single shot mode. Hoods were not attached to either lens. The difference between the inside of my house and outside (I just shot from a deck out the back door) was not much - maybe 5 deg and the temperature is comfortable. There was some wind, but not a lot.
Images shot with the 400-800mm were not nearly as bad as yesterday, so heat haze may well have played a role in the image softness. From today's simple test, it is pretty easy to see that the 300 with the 2x is far superior than the 400-800. I get better detail resolution with the 300 & 2x at 600mm than with 800mm on the 400-800mm. I also found that there is a bit of smearing (for lack of a better word) with the 400-800 and that effect got worse when going from 600mm to 800mm. Turning off the DMF made a slight improvement at 600mm on the 400-800, but I could not tell any difference at 800mm.
I will upload images that I shot this morning. The first set are full frame images, second set are crops of the mailboxes, and the third set are extremely cropped to better illustrate that smearing effect, which can be seen easily on the "W" on the mailbox. I realize that this is pixel peeping and the crops are not anything that would ever be reasonably done. It is merely to illustrate the difference in sharpness and ability to resolve details. No editing was done whatsoever other than the default sharpening in LR.
p.20 #3 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
A challenge I've noticed with every long lens I've ever owned is that not only does the lens magnify whatever I'm shooting, but it magnifies problems caused by everything in between. Haze or atmospheric distortion, minuscule camera shake, minuscule subject shake, and a host of other factors all can contribute to image degradation. Technique and shot planning are always important, but they become especially so when shooting over great distances with a large telephoto lens, like the 400-800 at 800.
Steve
p.20 #4 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Blueridger wrote:
A challenge I've noticed with every long lens I've ever owned is that not only does the lens magnify whatever I'm shooting, but it magnifies problems caused by everything in between. Haze or atmospheric distortion, minuscule camera shake, minuscule subject shake, and a host of other factors all can contribute to image degradation. Technique and shot planning are always important, but they become especially so when shooting over great distances with a large telephoto lens, like the 400-800 at 800.
Steve
Completely agree. The longer the lens, the more challenging it is to deal with every one of the items that you mentioned.
I shot with a 400-800mm in February (not the same copy that I ran these tests with) and was able to get sharp images hand-held of birds in flight (ducks) using shutter speeds of 1/4000 (I am not all that steady). Those ducks were certainly at a greater distance than the mailboxes that were in my test this morning. They were certainly good enough to inspire me to buy the lens. I really do feel that the copy that I received is not as good as the one that I tried out in February. After my comparison with the 300mm & 2x, I don't see a reason to keep the 400-800 as I get better results at 600mm with the 300 & 2x combo than the 400-800 at 800.
p.20 #5 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Abuttolph wrote:
This morning I did a comparison between the 400-800mm and the 300mm with the 2x TC. Everything was set up on a tripod with a ball head. I focused on a static subject (a neighbor's mailbox) and shot with AF-C using single shot mode. Hoods were not attached to either lens. The difference between the inside of my house and outside (I just shot from a deck out the back door) was not much - maybe 5 deg and the temperature is comfortable. There was some wind, but not a lot.
Images shot with the 400-800mm were not nearly as bad as yesterday, so heat haze may well have played a role in the image softness. From today's simple test, it is pretty easy to see that the 300 with the 2x is far superior than the 400-800. I get better detail resolution with the 300 & 2x at 600mm than with 800mm on the 400-800mm. I also found that there is a bit of smearing (for lack of a better word) with the 400-800 and that effect got worse when going from 600mm to 800mm. Turning off the DMF made a slight improvement at 600mm on the 400-800, but I could not tell any difference at 800mm.
I will upload images that I shot this morning. The first set are full frame images, second set are crops of the mailboxes, and the third set are extremely cropped to better illustrate that smearing effect, which can be seen easily on the "W" on the mailbox. I realize that this is pixel peeping and the crops are not anything that would ever be reasonably done. It is merely to illustrate the difference in sharpness and ability to resolve details. No editing was done whatsoever other than the default sharpening in LR.
Having owned the same set of lenses, I would say that at 600mm, my 300mm + 2X was a tad sharper than my 400-800mm. But only marginally. I also would say that there is an ISO difference in the images and that might help the 300mm in comparisons. That is real and is an advantage for that setup.
p.20 #6 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
CPWarner wrote:
Having owned the same set of lenses, I would say that at 600mm, my 300mm + 2X was a tad sharper than my 400-800mm. But only marginally. I also would say that there is an ISO difference in the images and that might help the 300mm in comparisons. That is real and is an advantage for that setup.
Interesting that your 300 with the 2x was only marginally sharper, whereas mine is more than that. There is always copy variation, so could be a difference between either the 400-800s or the 2x teleconverters, or both. In any case, the 300 with 2x sure beats out the 400-800, but it should with the price differential.
Agreed on the ISO too. In the tests, I tried to use the same shutter speed with lenses at their widest aperture knowing that the ISO would change between the two lenses, and focal length. While I still believe that ISO was not the main factor in the differences, it does contribute and cannot be discounted in terms of real world use.
p.20 #7 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Alas, the test is not whether the 300+2xtc is sharper/better than the 400-800 at 600, it's whether you value the flexibility of a zoom over better performance at a certain focal length. I'd love to go with just the 300, or 300+tc, but the flexibility of a zoom is unique and invaluable. The 400-800 involves compromises, to be sure, but I find that under good conditions and careful technique, it's fantastic for what it does.
p.20 #8 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Do people really cross shop between getting the 300GM(with a 2x TC) vs the 400-800(or 200-600 for that matter, also heard of that one too)? I understand the Image quality might be better, but damn they are more than doubling the price difference....
p.20 #9 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
RacingManiac wrote:
Do people really cross shop between getting the 300GM(with a 2x TC) vs the 400-800(or 200-600 for that matter, also heard of that one too)? I understand the Image quality might be better, but damn they are more than doubling the price difference....
I can't speak for other people, but in my case, I already own the 300 and both teleconverters. I was interested in the extended focal length of the 400-800, particularly after the excellent reviews that it gets. You are completely correct about the price difference and that could be the defining factor for people can't justify paying the high price of the 300mm, which is a very valid reason to choose another option.
p.20 #10 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Blueridger wrote:
Alas, the test is not whether the 300+2xtc is sharper/better than the 400-800 at 600, it's whether you value the flexibility of a zoom over better performance at a certain focal length. I'd love to go with just the 300, or 300+tc, but the flexibility of a zoom is unique and invaluable. The 400-800 involves compromises, to be sure, but I find that under good conditions and careful technique, it's fantastic for what it does.
Steve
Having a zoom is indeed really nice - no argument there. Every person has to weigh what works best for them, so their decisions on lenses are personal and made to suit their needs and preferences. In my case, I am going to forego the 400-800mm. That said, I do own the 200-600mm and have found it to be a wonderful lens to have with me when out photographing wildlife. It is an exceptional copy and I see no reason to let it go. I wish that I had thought to include it in the comparison that I did yesterday with the mailbox photos, but did not think about it.
p.20 #11 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Abuttolph wrote:
From today's simple test, it is pretty easy to see that the 300 with the 2x is far superior than the 400-800.
Judging by those samples, both of your lenses look equally bad to me. The only difference I can see is the 300GM images are exposed a little bit darker.
p.20 #12 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Cliff L. wrote:
Judging by those samples, both of your lenses look equally bad to me. The only difference I can see is the 300GM images are exposed a little bit darker.
The 300GM is indeed a little darker. There is a difference though in sharpness. If you look carefully at the "W" there is a bit of what almost looks like an offset with the 400-800 that is not there with the 300GM. That offset appears as a slight fuzzy whiter edge on the left side of the W and a slightly darker edge on the right side. It is more apparent at 800m than at 600mm. The 300GM has cleaner edges.
p.20 #13 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Out of curiosity, I thought it would be interesting to see how the 400-800 compares with the 200-600 with the 1.4x tc. This is just a comparison of backyard bird images that I have, so there is no control. My collection of image of backyard birds photographed with the 200-600 with the 1.4 tc is very small, so I only picked one image from that set to compare.
Image shot with the 200-600 and 1.4x was on a different camera though - that was the A7R4A, which has a higher resolution than the A1 which was used for the three images shot with the 400-800. I don't know how much difference that makes, but stating it for completeness.
For the comparison, I also chose images shot at the same shutter speed (1/4000) and ISO (5000). These settings were chosen because they were the closest that I could get with the images that I have. The image that was shot with the 200-600 with the 1.4x was at 783mm, so not quite at 800mm, as the other three. In LR, one image was denoised and sharpened. I took those settings and applied them directly to the other three images so that all of those changes were identical in all four images. I will show the full frame images and then a tight crop. The crop is also identical for all four images.
The only real difference is that the image shot with the 200-600 with the 1.4x is at f/11 whereas the images shot with the 400-800 are at f/8. The higher resolution sensor may be playing a role here as well.
In comparing, these all look pretty close to me. The image shot with the 200-600 with 1.4x looks slightly better, but that may owe more to depth of field than actual sharpness.
p.20 #14 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Abuttolph wrote:
The 300GM is indeed a little darker. There is a difference though in sharpness. If you look carefully at the "W" there is a bit of what almost looks like an offset with the 400-800 that is not there with the 300GM. That offset appears as a slight fuzzy whiter edge on the left side of the W and a slightly darker edge on the right side. It is more apparent at 800m than at 600mm. The 300GM has cleaner edges.
To my eyes, neither one is acceptably sharp from those examples, which makes me think the issue is not with the lenses.
p.20 #15 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Although circumstances often require us to shoot at such high ISO, so the test is relevant to actual use, I think it would be more revealing of the intrinsic lens capability to see a comparison at, say ISO 400-800. The high ISO in these examples definitely contributes to the apparent softness of the images (adding noise to an image degrades the edge contrast and accutance, especially if you are applying any noise reduction in PP). If you get some free time on a bright day, it would be great if you could give that a try.
p.20 #16 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
photonoclast wrote:
Although circumstances often require us to shoot at such high ISO, so the test is relevant to actual use, I think it would be more revealing of the intrinsic lens capability to see a comparison at, say ISO 400-800. The high ISO in these examples definitely contributes to the apparent softness of the images (adding noise to an image degrades the edge contrast and accutance, especially if you are applying any noise reduction in PP). If you get some free time on a bright day, it would be great if you could give that a try.
Yes, the higher ISO is certainly a detriment and does weaken the comparison. I would be very happy to conduct the comparison at much lower ISO values, but decided to return the 400-800 and handed it over to the shipper yesterday. So, I am unable to run that test. Perhaps someone else who has the same lenses would be willing to do that.
p.20 #18 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
umut_h_toprak wrote:
I have a bit of a niche question to the users of this lens:
Have you tried to use the lens just below 600mm at f7.1 and critically evaluated its performance?
I have seen no examples of this particular use case and think it could be interesting for existing users of the 200-600 who may be looking to switch.
Any example shots would of course be most interesting.
I sold my 200-600 after the 400-800 came out. I bought the 400-800 for the reach and better stabilization. I just bought back a 200-600 to start some videos shoots while using the 400-800 for stills. The sharpness of both lenses in 400-600 range is very similar, based on the reviews I have seen. I have not done a comparison test myself. I might have posted some images shot with the 400-800 at around 600mm.
p.20 #20 · Sony FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Image Thread
Douglas L wrote:
I sold my 200-600 after the 400-800 came out. I bought the 400-800 for the reach and better stabilization. I just bought back a 200-600 to start some videos shoots while using the 400-800 for stills. The sharpness of both lenses in 400-600 range is very similar, based on the reviews I have seen. I have not done a comparison test myself. I might have posted some images shot with the 400-800 at around 600mm.
Thank you Douglas,
I personally could find only one shot of a bird from another member at 7.1 just below 500. I'll keep looking.
