![]() ![]() I’m using the Kirk LP-65 ( B&H Photo) for my 100-400 and have also purchased the Kirk LP-68 ( B&H Photo) for the 200-600. Personally I prefer to replace the original foot with one that is arca-swiss compatible, as quick release plates can come loose and I have in the past left them at home and only realized when I came to mount the lens to my gimbal which is rather frustrating, they also add additional weight. So if you wish to use the lens on a tripod or gimbal head this leaves you with two options, you can either attach an arca-swiss quick release plate to the foot, or you can replace the entire foot for one that is arca-swiss compatible. Neither feet include an Arca-Swiss quick release plate which other lenses like the Sigma 60-600 do feature. The 200-600 does not require such a control since it’s an internal zoom and does not extend. The 100-400 features a zoom smoothness adjuster that provides mechanical control of zoom ring torque, although even when set to tight you will still get a little zoom creep if you hold the lens pointing towards the ground. The Sony FE 200-600mm G also has a variable aperture but this time it’s from f/5.6 – 6.3 and it jumps to f/6.3 at 300mm, the maximum focal length is 600mm. The Sony FE 100-400 GM has a variable aperture of f/4.5 – 5.6 and it jumps to f/5.6 at 164mm, the maximum focal length is 400mm. The second key difference is that the 200-600 includes an additional OSS (Optical SteadyShot) Mode 3 setting that provides stabilization for tracking and shooting dynamic, unpredictable sports action. The 100-400 has only two focus limiter settings and you can choose between full or infinity to 3m. You can choose between full, 10m-2.4m, or infinity to 10m. The first is that the 200-600 features 3 focus limiter settings. The lens has a maximum diameter of 93.9mm.Ībove you can see the main lens controls and if you look closely you will notice two key differences. Without extending the zoom it measures 205mm in length, extending the zoom to 400mm takes it to 285mm. ![]() The 100-400 is the lightweight of these two telephoto zooms and weighs in at 1596g (with tripod foot and hood attached). All images are copyright protected and may be used for personal use only.īoth lenses are very well made from magnesium-alloy and feature rubber gaskets to help keep dust and moisture at bay.īesides the obvious focal length and aperture differences, the biggest difference is that the 100-400 lens extends when you zoom whilst the 200-600 features a fixed length internal zoom design that does not extend, and therefore the distance between the front element and your subject does not change as you zoom. However, I do provide the username/password to all members of our community forum. RAW files are also available but password protected to help keep my hosting costs sensible. Full resolution SOOC JPEG images are available to download. **Please Note: Unless otherwise mentioned no post processing has been applied to the image samples in this guide except for cropping. You’ll also find lots of helpful tips and tricks. There you’ll find many friendly group members sharing photos shot with both the Sony 100-400 and the 200-600 lenses mounted to a range of different Alpha cameras. I'm curious to see what others' experiences have been with small apertures on macro lenses.Before I get started if you are on Facebook then please do consider joining the Sony Alpha Wildlife Shooters Group that I run. They offer three benefits IMO: cleaner backgrounds due to smaller angle of view, greater working distance, and a tripod collar. But, if you do determine that there is a problem with your current lens and decide to replace it, I do recommend something in the 180-200mm range. I don't have anything else technical to add (DLA? 1DIV? :2). Excessive sharpening was not required, and the original capture was significantly sharper than your f/32 examples here. By coincidence, the image in the thread I started yesterday was made with that lens at f/32 with a full-frame sensor. Does applying more aggressive sharpening result in an acceptably sharp final image? Clearly, some folks are achieving quality results at this aperture.I've been using Canon's 180 mm macro for years and have had no problems at f/32. This has been exactly my experience with both the Canon 100 and 180 mm macro lenses at f/32 - which is why I don't shoot at that aperture.Perhaps a more interesting question is how sharp the f/32 images are after sharpening. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |