Sony 600mm f4 vs Sony 200-600mm | Is it ACTUALLY Worth $10,000 MORE???

After reviewing both the $13,000 Sony 600mm f4 and the $2,000 Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 I am here to tell you which one I think is better? I think the results will surprise you.

____________________________________________________________________

Gear I USE

Follow me

Please help us continue to make FREE content
by purchasing one or all of the FroKnowsPhoto
Educational guides. To check out previews of
each guide click here.

#FroKnowsPhoto #Sony #VS

[thedondeluxe]

That 600mm looks like it would actually blast off into space if you lit a fuse at the end of it.

[badgastein]

I got my Sony 200-600 this week. It is a thing of beauty, the bargain of the century, no brainier...if you like photographing wildlife get one!!

[JACKnJESUS]

Well, Sony now has the very best long zoom lens in the world. They have come a very long way, in a very short time.

[shadduck]

18 months ago, this video was the trigger point for a decision that I have been very happy with. Am re-visiting to say THANK YOU! After shooting professionally with my Sony A-mount system for many, many, years, a shoulder injury (coupled with age!) made using my 13+ pound Minolta 600/4 & Sony a99ii far too painful. With the end of the Sony A-mount apparent in fall 2020 (the 4-yr cycle of flagship body upgrades was ended with introduction of the LA-EA5, A- to E-mount adapter), and semi-retirement looming, it became decision time. No longer able to use the heavy old Minolta prime (without paying for it with days of shoulder pain), this video convinced me to give the (nearly 9 pounds lighter!) 200-600 a try, so I coupled it with an a7Riv and have never looked back. Photo decisions are filled with trade-offs & compromises, and trading off the old heavy 600/4 for the 200-600 was a difficult one to arrive at. I see frequent references to how "heavy" the 200-600 is, but from my experience it is incredibly light for what it brings to the table. I'm very happy to say it brought new life back to my wildlife photography! Again, thank you for the comparison. Without this video, and with a $13k prime being an option that was off the table at this stage of life, I never would have imagined the viability of using this lens instead.

[markusvuori]

He's allowed to show off those guns because he has probably worked hard to get them

[dcmedia]

Jeez! I thought you were joining in on the NASA 50 year Moon landing aniversary at first sight... then I realised that wasn't a 1/4 scale model Saturn V rocket :-D

[PanheadEL]

11:16 Add a chest fly test for the big, tripod mount equipped lens.

[TheLDunn]

It might be interesting to maybe throw in the 400 2.8 & 100-400 into the mix too (with the 1.4 & 2x converters)

For example, if you had all four lenses just sitting around at home waiting to be taken out and used, as you do, which would you grab first for a day’s shooting on various subjects (with maybe a couple of smaller lighter shorter focal length lenses for more general use).

I’ve read/watched elsewhere that it’s arguably better to use the 1.4x & crop vs shooting with the 2x.

To my eyes, the 600 was a fraction sharper on the eagle head shot and gorilla head shot, but it would not be enough to make the difference to me.
The low light advantage of f4 vs f6.3 is obviously present, but I feel this is increasingly becoming less critical as hi iso performance keeps remember shooting with 400 film and thinking that was too we can ‘get away with’ 6400 easy enough on the latest generation cameras, maybe even 10k or 12.8k on the best, so, I think I could live with f6.3 vs f4 most of the time, it will be a very limited set of circumstances where you actually need f4 & f6.3 is not sufficient, and where you can’t use a tripod/subject is moving.

The isolation power of the f4 vs f6.3 was tangible though, it makes the subject ‘pop’ in a way that 6.3 just can’t. Especially noticeable in the baseball shots. If money were no object, it is for this reason why I’d want the f4. However, you have to wonder if with a bit of careful post processing that you couldn’t recover a little of that isolation, and with AI coming increasingly into processing, it can only be a matter of time before this can just be a simple click away, to narrow the gap even further.

Going back to the 100-400 vs 200-600 argument, I’ve read/watched somewhere that the 100-400 is a tad sharper, so if used with a 1.4, that could get you close to the 600 when needed, and you have a faster lens up to 400mm.

The 400 2.8 vs 600 4 is also an interesting one to me, throw in the 1.4x on the 400 and you have a 600 f4 near enough, but you also have the flexibility of being able to shoot at 400 when needed, and at f2.8 when the light is even poorer. I’m not sure if you can physically stack two Sony 1.4 converters, (I have stacked Canon converters in the past), but that might be an interesting test too, 600+1.4x vs 400+two 1.4x converters. Sure, it’s going to be less sharp, but how much less sharp?

I think if I had all 4 lenses to play with, I’d find the 400 2.8 & a 1.4x converter to be a more flexible combo than a straight 600 f4, and It would be much faster and better subject isolation vs either the 100-400 & 200-600, and maybe pair the 400 with something around the 100-135 mark for when 400 is too long....I would have suggested 70-200 2.8 here, but throw on the 1.4x and it’s getting a bit close to the 400mm on its own.

[stuartschaffner]

Generally, I like this review. Manufacturers are putting out spectacularly good optical values these days. A lot of the old rules about prime versus zoom are being rendered moot. If the experience with the 400mm f/2.8 is any guide, you won't be able to accept delivery for the 600mm f/4 until after the Olympics unless you have connections. Don't rule out the Sony 100-400mm f/5.6-6.3 either. For real wildlife, I'll still take a prime. Zoos and sports stadia are generally well lit and arranged so that the viewers can see the displays. In the wild, the lighting is often bad and the animals are trying to avoid being seen. Low flare and high light-gathering ability still count for a lot.

[keving]

Great review! My recommendation
Not pro: 200-600
Pro: buy both

[abearah]

The 600mm is so light! While the 200mm 2.8 is so freaking heavy. Also the best part was I got a(X20 A9) photo of Lok Cheung today at Lens library

[photoyed]

the 600 F/4 has better micro-contrast around the point of focus (on the exact plane of focus, they are similar).

[tylerHphoto]

I would love to see these on an a6500 or a6400 and compare that to using the 1.4x teleconverter to get the reach.

[ItsMeRango]

Not sure what changed but this probably the sharpest video of yours I've seen. Looks great!

[SamGr]

how do they focus on our cheapo a7r ii? The 6.3 one ofcourse...

[Etoshasafari]

Please do me a favor to compare btween Canon 600mm f4 iii vs Sony 600mm f4

[panopsata]

Sometimes you have to use the image stabilization (whether lens or in body) to cheat the reciprocal rule. It's not always a must.

[filipposg]

Shooting at f6.3 rather than f4 means you need a higher ISO to achieve the same speed. Higher ISO means more noise. It's impressive how sharp the prime lens is wide open at f4.

[BillGrahams]

Hello Jared. I'm just getting started with photography and I don't know much about it. I have the Sony 200-600mm and an a7III. I figured out how to work with manual focus and also how to zoom into 5.9 and 11.7. Nevertheless, when I go to push down the shutter, button the camera automatically goes back out to a zoom level of 1.0. I've tried working with quite a few settings in the camera's menu after reading about them. I'm going through the user guide that comes with the camera and also the longer online version. I've also held down the focus hold buttons on the telephoto lens. Nothing seems to work. What am I doing wrong? Alternatively, are my expectations out of alignment with reality?

[anandvyas]

After eight minutes at 8:49 the players are clearly different places on the field