Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-12-2019, 10:44 AM - 3 Likes   #16
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,056
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Bears coming for food and water point before dusk, from a ground buried hide with semi-reflexive glass, doesn't require 450mm, even 200mm on apsc can be two long as it happened to some photographers using a D500 with the 200-500 f5.6. Before dusk with trees all around become dark quickly, because the sun being at an angle and trees projecting shadows. And the semi-reflexive glass of the hide takes 3/4rd of a stop of light. Bears in Europe and bears of North America aren't the same, we don't have Grizzly bears here.
I once had the same thing happen with a moose. I shot with a 70-300 @70, the Canon users just said "too tight" and left. As it got darker I changed to the FA 50 1.7 and kept shooting.


06-12-2019, 09:00 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 5,567
Wow, 13 grand for a 600mm F 4 lens ! Well, that's way out of my camera budget.

I guess I'll just have to continue making out with my 6 year old Sigma 150-500 lens, which to my tired, old eyes seems to produce pretty sharp pics.

Probably wise for me not to try out this new Sony 600mm lens, as I would then come to a quick and stark realization as to what I was missing and then start thinking...probably morosely...how I can't do without that 13,000 USD lens.
06-12-2019, 10:32 PM   #18
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Tyumen, Russia
Posts: 45
Eh, I'm not sure what's all the commotion about the price is.
Both Canon and Nikon sell their equivalent glass for about the same price.
I think that the telephoto lenses are a really smart investment as they'll be staying relevant for qutie a while. You can get away with shooting landscapes and even portaits with relative success using a phone, but there's no way you're getting any decent pictures of animals or sports.
06-12-2019, 11:17 PM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,498
QuoteOriginally posted by MetalUndivided Quote
Eh, I'm not sure what's all the commotion about the price is.
When lenses are that expensive, the car I'd use to carry the lens is cheaper than the lens itself, and I could think of changing hobby, the equipment for fishing (in rivers) is a lot cheaper than Sony lenses.
Anyway, with my D-FA150-450 @450mm, every time I make an effort to get 10 feet closer to the subject by whatever method I use (camo dress, IR remote, etc), I rejoice to have just saved 10 grands, I'm proud of myself. It's technique vs money, but for $13000 I'm willing to put in the efforts on my technique because the pay-back is huge, and I'll be happy to let other people spend the $13000. I've seen an ornithologist, ridding a bicycle, using a Canon 7D and a 400 f5.6, it's a lot cheaper than a 600 f4 alone, and he gets his wildlife books sold. When lenses are that expensive, I could think of changing hobby, the equipment for fishing (in rivers) is a lot cheaper.


Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-12-2019 at 11:30 PM.
06-12-2019, 11:28 PM   #20
Junior Member




Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Tyumen, Russia
Posts: 45
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
When lenses are that expensive, I could think of changing hobby, the equipment for fishing (in rivers) is a lot cheaper.
Well, I probably will never afford a lens like that either, but I don't see a problem with it. Besides, $ony has also announced the 200-600 for a couple grand and that seems to be a more realistic figure, so that's an option.

Last edited by MetalUndivided; 06-12-2019 at 11:33 PM. Reason: Stupid extra quote
06-12-2019, 11:33 PM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,498
QuoteOriginally posted by MetalUndivided Quote
Besides, $ony has also announced the 200-600 for a couple grand and that seems to be a more realistic figure, so that's an option.
Yes, that's a more reasonable option, but I already have a similar lens, the Pentax D-FA150-450, technique is much more effective that the lens FL. I used to think that I needed a lens FL between 1000mm and 2000mm, then, after discussing with some experienced photogs in the forum, I researched and worked on my technique and now I don't even need 450mm, often I zoomed out to 300mm because I'm too close for 450mm.
06-13-2019, 02:30 AM   #22
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,940
There are times photographers need long lenses, but one of the wildlife photographers who was on here said that the difference between good wildlife photographers and the best wildlife photographers was that how close they got to their subjects. He tended to use a 300mm f2.8 lens because it gave him faster shutter speeds and would then figure out how to get close enough to his subject with the use of blinds, etc to allow for good framing.

Not that 300mm f2.8 lenses are cheap...
06-14-2019, 05:04 AM   #23
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,776
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
There are times photographers need long lenses, but one of the wildlife photographers who was on here said that the difference between good wildlife photographers and the best wildlife photographers was that how close they got to their subjects. He tended to use a 300mm f2.8 lens because it gave him faster shutter speeds and would then figure out how to get close enough to his subject with the use of blinds, etc to allow for good framing.

Not that 300mm f2.8 lenses are cheap...

it's all relative. I got a sigma 300 2.8 and it was over 3k. It's heavy enough to wop the bear over the head if he got too close although I have never seen a bear much less got close to one in the wild




06-14-2019, 05:44 AM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,619
QuoteOriginally posted by pearsaab Quote
it's all relative
And in the case of the Sony 600mm f4, very closely aligned with competitor offerings:
[from B&H]
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR Lens: $12,296.95

Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM Lens: $12,999.00

So $13000 seems to be about what everyone expects to pay for a new, stabilized 600mm f4.
06-14-2019, 06:03 AM   #25
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,940
QuoteOriginally posted by pearsaab Quote
it's all relative. I got a sigma 300 2.8 and it was over 3k. It's heavy enough to wop the bear over the head if he got too close although I have never seen a bear much less got close to one in the wild


Of course, while the Sigma is 2400 grams, a 600mm f4 lens typically weighs more in the 3800 grams (at least that's what the Nikon 600mm f4 weighs). So if you can wop a bear with a 300 f2.8 you should be able to kill him with a 600mm f4.
06-14-2019, 06:03 AM   #26
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,056
With that lens Sony seems to be in it for the long haul. You don't develop a lens like that if you are not giving yourself some time to recoup your development costs.
06-14-2019, 06:33 AM   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,331
Given Sony’s penchant for throwing money at product, I wonder if this isn’t a “halo” lens that they’re prepared to even risk losing money on, in order to attract more users of their less-expensive (but still pricey) products.
06-14-2019, 07:34 AM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,380
Original Poster
I don't see it as a halo lens. Its a key lens for Sony if they want to compete in the sports and wildlife segment. It's priced on par with the competition. We will see how it performs, but so far all of the GM lenses have done very well.
06-14-2019, 07:45 AM   #29
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,056
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
I don't see it as a halo lens. Its a key lens for Sony if they want to compete in the sports and wildlife segment. It's priced on par with the competition. We will see how it performs, but so far all of the GM lenses have done very well.
Most of my older FA glass still does "very well". I'm not sure what you're saying here.
I bought my DA 55-300 PLM in part because some independent review sites called it "best in class". Wen I buy a lens that isn't critical for what I do, and with my Tamron 2.8 and 2x TC on FF or F 1/7x AF adapter or HD DA 1.4 TC on APS-c giving me 600 5.6,510 4.5, or 420 ƒ4, I'm not even considering a lens like that that isn't "best in class". If it's not best in class when first released, it's never going to be best in class is it?
06-14-2019, 07:53 AM - 2 Likes   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,380
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Most of my older FA glass still does "very well". I'm not sure what you're saying here.
I bought my DA 55-300 PLM in part because some independent review sites called it "best in class". Wen I buy a lens that isn't critical for what I do, and with my Tamron 2.8 and 2x TC on FF or F 1/7x AF adapter or HD DA 1.4 TC on APS-c giving me 600 5.6,510 4.5, or 420 4, I'm not even considering a lens like that that isn't "best in class". If it's not best in class when first released, it's never going to be best in class is it?
For people who are shooting Sony and want to take advantage of Sony's AF system, your FA glass is irrelevant regardless of how well it does. Sony needs to fill out their lens line-up. The New 600mm lens doens't need to be best in class, it just needs to be the best option for a Sony system shooter. I don't think many people will be buying this lens if it isn't critical for what they are doing. This isn't a lens you through into your bag so you have it just in case you need it.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
600mm, camera, f/4, glass, lens, lenses, market, model, sony, sony 600mm f/4, sports, times, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
flickr - cutting down accounts from free 1,000 GB to a meagre 1,000 photos beholder3 Photographic Industry and Professionals 5 11-02-2018 07:42 AM
"Improper accounting charges" for Fujifilm hits $341,000.000 USD. gaweidert Photographic Industry and Professionals 33 06-18-2017 01:19 PM
10,000 miles in 5,000 minutes r0ckstarr General Talk 3 06-13-2011 11:57 AM
1,000,000,000,000 graphicgr8s General Talk 46 07-16-2009 10:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:30 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top