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

[@thedondeluxe6941]

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

[@badgastein2]

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.

[@CitizenSnips69]

We have the same camera/lens setup :) I do wildlife photography, but just for myself not professionally. Can’t justify spending 13k on a hobby at 25 years of age. But what I have works great for me.

[@markusvuori]

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

[@dcmedia66]

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

[@stuartschaffner9744]

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.

[@TheLDunn1]

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 improving.....I remember shooting with 400 film and thinking that was too grainy.....now 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.

[@MichaelKantormusic]

I had the 400 2.8 and traded for the 600. I wish I hadn't for the reasons you list. The 600 is fun but too much lens for most sporting events. It's mostly good for wildlife. Even for sports its a bit much a lot of the times.

[@cruelolol]

I rented the 100-400 with both TC to compare to my 200-600. My take after shooting birds: no internal zoom absolutely sucks. The amount of ring travel to get to 400mm gets old fast when compared to the 200-600mm. With the 2x TC, the 100-400 is only applicable in the day time, I would not use that setup at dawn/dusk with an F11 being the widest aperture. YMMV.

[@TheLDunn1]

@@cruelolol - hello ;-) you have resurrected an old comment I left 4 years ago, I can't recall the video now, but I now have teh Sony 200-600 myself (just could not justify the cost of the 400/2.8), however, after using the 200-600 for a while now, for me, I think it is probably the better option, regardless of price. Just the ability to zoom out, acquire your target & then zoom back in, vs wildly swinging around a long focal length hunting for a small moving target, helps me I think. Given time & practice, I'm sure I'd adapt to a long fixed focal length, but that ease of use when you are not shooting long focal lengths every day should not be underestimated I think. I recognise your comments too about the amount of ring travel to zoom in & out, & the very slow aperture with the 2x converter. I very recently picked up the 1.4x converter (because it was heavily discounted). I briefly tried it on the 200-600 but it doesn't AF at all / well on an A7Siii. It might be a 'settings' thing, I've not taken the time to investigate further.

[@keving7773]

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

[@Panhead49EL]

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

[@abearah9255]

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

[@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.

[@photoyed]

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

[@blazeboy777]

Please can you shoot some indoor portraits with those two? I think they are must-have for not invited wedding photographer :P

[@ItsMeRango]

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

[@_MattyG_]

You do the best lens reviews.

[@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.

[@panopsata3038]

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

[@sidvicious3129]

Although differences can be seen, they are so insignificant that an extra 10,000 price difference can't be justified by most, according to the photos that you provided. This is great news for Sony either way. Sony has truly come a long way.

[@jeffluo9591]

It's not about sharpness or bokeh. The main advantage of the f4 is allowing you to use faster shutter speed, which is important while shooting sports and wildlife.

[@DevonLad]

This feels like this is the third time I've seen the same video, starting with you walking into a zoo and also featuring the exact same shots?

[@youuuuuuuuuuutube]

I think this is the last chapter.

[@jakew3]

Seriously, with the comparison of the stadium seats and the bokeh

[@tc6912]

Its about clicks with this guy, his heart left photography a long time ago.

[@Jonathantuba]

The 600 F4 is for those that make their living from sports or wildlife photography - or have very deep pockets and want the very best. I expect Sony sell low numbers of these F4 lenses. Even now 2 years latter there is still a wait for delivery. The 200-600 is by contrast I am sure sold in large numbers to amateur wildlife and sports photographers. How well the lens is used by the skill of the person shooting is still the main factor to the end results.

[@Etoshasafari]

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

[@thedondeluxe6941]

You know what they say: "Bokeh don't come for free"

[@marcioslsouza]

Jared, would the Sony 200-600mm be suitable for aviation photography?

[@TolgaEastCoast]

Yes. I just used it yesterday on some inbounds at MIA. Depends how you do depth of field, if you're more comfortable with more landscapey shots the 6.3 is all good.

[@CameraRay]

Some lucky Germans are already receiving their 200-600mm lenses they pre-ordered.

[@walknride7344]

Camera Ray I am Indian and I got one as early as 24th of July this year.

[@tomwold8269]

That was a super awesome wind tunnel test. And a super awesome sniff test! WOW! 😀

[@anthonyhershko]

Great video!! That 200-600mm look insane!!

[@diantownsend3350]

Really nice lenses. Sony doing some things right here.

[@BillGraham60s]

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?

[@SamGr287]

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

[@johndrachenberg2254]

You keep saying "the real world" and referring to the Zoo... I know it's not really your thing, but I would really love to see some actual real-world photography... like, actual wildlife... without fences... ALSO: Would you consider talking about the Nikon P900? For a couple hundred bucks used, this slightly older unit seems like an ideal P&S camera to get your feet wet, especially for wildlife and landscapes.

[@keving7773]

Actually going to the zoo is a great way for beginners to get familiar with photographing wildlife. I recommend it to a lot of my friends that are starting up. Not that different than going on safari where animals just sit there. Also bird shows (at the zoo) help too

[@ladykatepyro]

Yes, a great camera to get your feet wet. However, a 100-400 lens with a full frame will take better shots at the same distance. I have the p1000 and use it occasionally because it is lighter (comparatively) than a real setup. However, you get what you pay for and the combination of a full frame and a good long lens is hard to beat.

[@johno7564]

I shoot sports, a lot of it happens at night. (Football, baseball, soccer). I’ll always choose a lens with a larger aperture that allows in more light.

[@gtrlover3983]

Great review Jared huge help for me!!

[@Superfly816]

I think I’m going to get the sigma adapter and a canon 150-600 for my sony a7iii as a budget/starter telephoto. Hopefully it keeps me satisfied while I save for GM glass

[@sandboxaperture7013]

I think im just going to buy the 200-600. I'll save 10,000 and just subject mask in photoshop and gaussian blur the background when needed. The trade off in low light performance, noise from higher ISO, I think I can denoise my way to neutral territory on that as well. I think this buying decision comes down to, do you have the money to afford not having to obtain these results in post processing. A lot of professionals simply dont have the time to edit their photos like that, and thats where this lens can bring real value, granted, at a tremendous cost.

[@BillFerris]

Fro, it might be kinda fun for you to get together with 2-3 other KZbinrs for a Summer Frotofest. Get together for a couple of days, someplace fun. Shoot a few videos for each other's channels. If you could gather Sony, Nikon, Canon and Fuji cameras with some consumer-priced glass - wide angles for landscapes, mid-range primes and zooms for portraits, longer glass for sports and wildlife - you'd come away with some bodacious shootouts.

[@tiny6912]

Thanks for the test, very informative!

[@Wildicon19]

Wow both lenses are awesome! Thank you for the amazing comparison photos from both applications 😊 I plan on buying the zoom and budgeting for the telephoto! Quick query, how are they with the Sony a1?

[@DrDiemotma]

I always wonder when you show those professional tools in comparison, will it earn you money to justify, in this example, the 600 f4 over the 200-600? And of so, how long will it take to break even, if ever? As an amateur, I don't judge either way, it is really just curiosity.

[@anandvyas2701]

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

[@drummingspain207]

Glad someone else spotted that. Don't know by how much but a good 7-8 m by the look of it. Certainly not a fair test.

[@BlingBlingTheBSOFTHEISS]

I love your presets, sandbox is my favorite

[@froknowsphoto]

Sand lot.

[@sadenb]

The prime lens had better microcontrast . You can notice in the eagle image.

[@fruhfruh429]

I love the photos but in the photos I see that sensor dust or lens dust either way it’s crazy at 5.6-6.3 you can see it

[@PhotoYo]

The 200-600 is gonna be my next lens

[@SAVINGMARION1]

Listen here you big haired crazy fella! STOP UPLOADING THE SAME CONTENT! #stillloveya

[@tebitan3780]

Maybe he doesn't have anything else to show now?

[@plqphotographytech]

He made three videos, one on the 600 F4, one on the 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 and one talking about the difference... So not the same no.

[@pavelgorohovsky3493]

Thanks a lot for such a great comparison!

[@gregfisher9173]

I shoot a lot of sports including Major League Soccer and NFL football. I typical arm myself with the 600mm GM F4 and the 100-400mm GM. It gives me complete coverage which I desire. It allows me not to miss much. With football I also carry a 24-70 F2.8

[@MichaelKantormusic]

Hey Greg, I guess I am unique but find the 600 too long for soccer. I wish I kept my 400 2.8 which I traded for the 600.

[@MatVicens4]

"Pro-ass bokeh" 😂

[@DrSimonFreilich]

Hi Jared, great video but are your eyes ok? they seem to be flickering ++ in the horizontal plane. Bw Simon

[@ItsWillLee]

wait..you're a doctor..Jared is wearing glasses..🤔..hmmm... yes, he does have an eye condition...are you new to the channel, because he has addressed it on more than one occasion..

[@markdbey]

"Pro...Ass...Bokeh"! 😭🤣 I love it! 😎

[@stefangrozescu594]

Hi what lens are you using to record this video?

[@drashadibudi]

Why are no one do a comparison of 200-600mm VS 100-400mm+1.5 teleconverter?

[@klackon1]

Ashadi Budi. There is one, I've watched it: If you go to this You Tube channel you will find it:- Mark Galer's Alpha Creative Skills. Mark is a Sony Ambassador and his assessment is that the 200 - 600mm is sharper at 600 than the 100 - 400mm + SEL14TC at 560mm. I am part exchanging my 100 - 400mm + SEL20TC for a 200 - 600mm + SEL14TC. Even though the 100 - 400mm is a fantastic lens, I am confident the 200 - 600mm is a better option for me.

[@elliottb7367]

Great comparison video.

[@xristidi]

Just a minor point... Easier to comprehent: "..one lense weighs 3kg (kilos if u wish) and the other 2kg..." cause u're listing pounds and giving grams... that would make the 600 weigh 107.2oz and the 200-600 74.4oz...

[@MHarvey-tp5km]

"this is so cool I've got $15,000 in my hands"... [Proceeds to spit all over them] :-)

[@bajanalbany]

I enjoy watching your videos, very informative and funny.

[@FrankP83]

can't stop watching this video...

[@sgpork]

Somehow.. I seems to have watch this video before.. is this a re upload? The prime 600 look so much bigger than the 200-600.. It's just funny that it only weights less than 1 kg more. Beautiful lenses nonetheless. Cant wait for 17th .. Sony big news.

[@youuuuuuuuuuutube]

1st video = 600f4, 2nd video = 200-600, 3rd video = comparison of those 2 lenses.

[@PelicanIslandLabs]

Side by side the images from the F4 lens obliterates the zoom images. That said, I suspect the zoom lens images would be good enough for 99% of the serious amateurs out there.

[@Yupthereitism]

Obliterates? Lol

[@misterlove7034]

I want a 600mm 1.2

[@brunofalcone9979]

Looking at the pictures, except if you're a top professional, I don't really think you're losing much with the 200-600 but you gain a lot on flexibility (can take any 200-600 picture), whereas the 600 is very limiting... That's before you even compare prices! So, the 200-600 is pretty amazing!

[@welcti]

Honestly unless you're already a pro, you're likely to get better pictures with the 200-600 anyway. You probably want to be able to shoot moving targets. And locating a moving target at 600mm - or longer if using a TC - is not easy. Even with the ability to back out to 200mm and then zoom back in, it's still not super-easy. But it's easier than trying to do it directly at 600mm. So even if money was no object, I'd want to get to a point where I can easily locate subjects on the move at 600mm+ before considering springing for a 600 prime. Also, part of it is probably trying to hand-hold. The 100-400 is pretty reasonable to hand-hold. The 200-600 can be hand held for shorter periods of time, though maybe it's not ideal. The 600 prime you're expected to only use on a tripod.

[@ItsWillLee]

Jared, when you said "Pro. Ass. Bokeh.", it was an easy decision. Thanks...I just sold my Tesla so I can buy the 600mm.. I know, it's a PRO lens...and I'm not making money with it...but I want "Pro. Ass. Bokeh." to obliterate the background. ps. I don't own a Tesla... ;p

[@drummingspain207]

ps. and you didn't get the 600 f4 either :)

[@georgefenrich4119]

Has NIKON got a real camera out yet?

[@AllCarsUnited]

Nah but they're promising raw video.... One day, maybe

[@richard2139]

How does the Sony 600 4.0 compare to 400 2.8 + 1.4 converter (600 4.0)

[@johntheux9238]

What about diffraction if you add a 2x teleconverter on a a7r4? Which is sharper?

[@kaibrand8015]

I don't think it matters much nowadays what lens you have if its a G master its already a good quality lens, plus if its on the A9 that's the best sports camera on the market (swallowing my canon pride).

[@JacobNewmen]

F6.3 will be unusable in the forest under worse light. With f4 it will be possible to take pictures. Here is the difference. In good light, the differences will be minimal.

[@marcioslsouza]

What's that tinny monitor you use above your Sony camera?

[@bigolives]

Hey Jared. Another great review! This 200-600 looks like what ive just been waiting for. It's now time to offload the Sigma ;-) Just gotta wait a few weeks now for it to be released over here in Blighty.

[@drummingspain207]

Hey! How are you getting on with it? It's had a bit of a Marmite effect that's for sure...

[@magictaz7]

What are your thoughts in the POLO sharpshot D7200 that you can buy on Wish? I would like to see you do a real world test on it befor I buy one for the kids to use and learn on

[@ElijahDanielleFarrakhan]

This was a fantastic review. Although the price tag on that 600 is insane, that background blur is incomparable. I'd like to have that lens one day, but in the meantime, I will go with the 200-600.

[@joakimolsson1024]

Well, for $10 a month you can get lightroom+photoshop and simply just apply a slight blur to the background to the 200-600 😉

[@Morachi51]

Have we just saw someone spit on a 13000 dollars lens? lol

[@sandeshrai2691]

I could not access you 11 days video . What should I do

[@PSkinnerTech]

This is probably a dumb suggestion that I'll probably get sh*t on for, but I'd like to see a lens comparison of the Sony FE f2.8 100-400 vs. Sony FE f2.8 70-200 w/ x2 teleconverter. I'd like to see if it's actually worth buying the 100-400 rather than just buying the x2 teleconverter and slapping that on my 70-200.

[@tomghzel]

You can a watch 70-200 with and without teleconverter and see how much it downgrades the sharpness.

[@tacuaren1]

Any chance of getting a video on sharp pictures with the 200-600 with a7r3 , i am having trouble Getting crisp clear pictures

[@drummingspain207]

Maybe the photographer? 🤔

[@THEMATT222]

Jared polin Fro Knows photo!!!!!!!!!!

[@aFLYER1980]

Basically if you want more DOF buy the 600/4, for everyone else, the 200-600 is more than good enough

[@drummingspain207]

less DOF

[@Jack-ni8kd]

Could have been a better joke as the Gorillaz are a band as well love

[@jenlindy73]

Horizonically hahaha. Sorry Jared, made me laugh.

[@miker8225]

I'd love to see a video on the technicalities of why a lens is SO MUCH MORE expensive just for a few stops more of light. How can they justify the price tag??

[@Zorolath]

When your job requires perfection, you dish out :P Durability, sharpness (although these seem very comparable tbh), DOF & bokeh from the F4, AF speed. Its a luxury lens for sure

[@thePavuk]

amazing lenses

[@annoyboyPictures]

So Basically you pay $11,000 MORE for some slightly better Bokeh? Totally not Worth it... especially since Photoshop has a "Depth Blur" plugin that adds background blur to the image in 1 easy step.

[@robmo9352]

Ich nutze das für meine Sportfotos als Ergänzung zum 70-200 GM. Ich bin echt begeistert von dem Objektiv. Klar ist die Blende ein Thema. Da bei schnellen Bewegungen Verschlusszeiten von mindestens 1/1000 erforderlich sind. Aber bei ISO 4000 oder 6400 ist das mit dem Sensor der A7iii immer noch kein Problem. Wer Fragen zum Objektiv hat oder Beispielbilder haben mag, kann sich gern melden! LG @t

[@tomghzel]

We don't understand what you said there bro

[@Rvb_25]

Ye but with denoise ai u can just blur the background

[@ImagesByRBN]

so, 4 years after this video, i wonder whether the answer of the question has changed...... with lightroom's new ability to blur backgrounds and even chose the shape of the bokeh!

[@jeroenvdw]

The main reason is still to be able to lower your ISO with the prime and because of that you make sharper photos with more detail. Also the 200-600 isn't sharp enough for 61mp camera's that we have nowadays. The 600mm prime is sharp even on a 100mp camera if they will ever release it according to Sony.

[@alvinperez8088]

Thanks Jared. Very informative. Your subscriber here from Philippines.

[@marwenbacha7098]

900$ is it worth it ? Panasonic Lumix GX9 Hybrid Pack Silver + G Vario Lens 12-32 mm f / 3.5-5.6 Asph. Mega O.I.S. + G Vario lens 35-100 mm f / 4.0-5.6 Asph. Mega O.I.S. + Lens G 25 mm f / 1.7 Asph. + 16GB SD Memory Card

[@chrislognshot]

i would more worried about the dusk mark or what ever mark is on sensor bro. or did not see it when shooting at the zoo bro. also can you add a teleconvert to the 200-600mm and give real world review.

[@Noealz]

I wish I could afford anything worth that much - but if I did I would probably buy a car lol

[@gigafish2x077]

so whose going to shoot some lion chasing you in a terrain vehicle and the 600 & whose shooting talladega in the fall with the 200-600? ☺️

[@rashadalmilad]

A9 is a bad choice. Should have used a7r4 or 3 at least

[@Gijz74]

8:30 There you have it. Now we finally know the price of pro-ass-bokeh: 10.000 bucks ;-)

[@antonoat]

Shooting sports @600mmf4 your focus has to be bang right on the nail or you are wasting your time, something to think about!

[@froknowsphoto]

Not something you need to worry much about with the a9 honestly.

[@antonoat]

@@froknowsphoto Thanks Jared, I must admit I'm reading and hearing good things about the A9. I must admit AF fine tuning lenses for my Nikon cameras is a serious pain in the posterior. Perhaps it's time for me to go mirrorless!

[@tracerhayden573]

11:13 just making a time stamp for myself.

[@sfiron]

Just came back from Costa Rica using the A1 with the 200-600. I also had an opportunity to shoot with the 600 GM. The 200-600 is sharp but not super sharp. Also photographing any moving target puts you in high noise iso and sharpness declines very fast using the 200-600. The 200-600 will only work (because of the low light input) with still subjects with less light or strong light with moving target. The number of times these two lenses can even be compared side by side is very limited. Driving a Honda and a Ferrari to the store yes quite the same at 35 miles per hour. On the race track no way to compare. The 200-600 is ok and match the price point in my mind. The 600gm is too expensive and the lineup is painfully missing a 500 prime with 5.6 F-stop and a mid range price…

[@roccosaya7163]

Not at all true, as computational photography comes to the rescue. Combine your results from the 200-600 with Topaz Denoise and the Neural Filter Depth with Photoshop, and you can come really close to the performance of the 600. Mind you, the Neural Depth Filter isn't perfect, but you'd be surprised just how good it is now with the latest photoshop. The filter will only improve, and Topaz Denoise will also improve. Another few years, and maybe we won't need F/4 prime 600's at all. (Especially for an extra $11,000!)

[@PsychicWorldTV]

Yes it is if you are a pro

[@Wightzebra]

The 600mm f4, no. The 400mm f/2.8 yes worth it.

[@Jonathantuba]

I got the 400 F2.8. For me really worth it for F2.8 to shoot wildlife in poor light, but F4 of the 600 is too near to F6.3 to be worth the huge price, at least for me. Plus it is difficult to lock onto a flying bird at 600mm. The 200-600 is great lens, except in poor light conditions when ISO can get too high and spoil the image if high shutter speed required for action

[@timmcmillan2417]

@@Jonathantuba yup

[@Vincent112june]

I doubt even sports guys would be interested. I think that is a pap and PI bit of glass.

[@Alpa6c]

I'd define the 600mm f/4 as "rich ass bokeh".

[@sullyg714]

If you take a shot for the amount of time he talks about his guns throughout all his videos, would you be drunk or sober?