The Most Fun I ve Ever Had Reviewing Camera Gear

On my desk here, I have the three top ultra telephoto lenses you can buy right now for Sony. And I have had the time of my life testing out each one of these lenses for the last week. Can a $3,000 lens beat a $15,000 lens? What about this $6,600 lens? Let's find out. So a couple of months ago, I tested out Sony's 400 to 800 millimeter lens. This was my first attempt into wildlife photography. And I absolutely fell in love with this genre of photography as well as this lens. Now, I love the A93 and the 400 to 800 so much that in that review, I said, I think this is literally the best sports wildlife setup currently on the market. But a few of you in the comments said, not so fastly, Sigma just announced their brand new 300 to 600 F4. See, the main problem with this lens is that it's not that fast. It goes from 6.3 very quickly to F8 the second you start to zoom in. And when it comes to ultra telephoto photography, that usually requires really fast shutter speeds, which means your ISO is going to go through the roof. Sigma's new 300 to 600 fixes that problem. As you can tell, it's quite a bit larger and gives you a fixed F4 aperture throughout the entire zoom range from 300 to 600. This is Sony's 600 millimeter F4 lens. It has the exact same reach and aperture of the Sigmas, but it doesn't have the ability to zoom. This is a fixed 600 millimeter lens. I was expecting great things from this lens because this thing costs $14,100. Why does it cost so much? Let's find out. For the last week, I've been going out three times a day, each time with a different lens and sometimes with a different camera as well. And I've been shooting wildlife here in Puerto Rico. Let me first start off by saying that each one of these lenses is incredible. I don't think it's possible for anyone to pick out which lens took which picture. Yes, the two larger and more expensive lenses have a wider aperture, which will give you shallower depth of field. But even at F8, the shallow depth of field out of this lens is gorgeous. I mean, when you look at this image right now, are you thinking, you know what? That depth of field is just too deep. I want more blur. I don't think so. All three of these lenses have almost identical features. However, the two most expensive lenses come with the ability to set and then recall focus. And they also have the ability to add filters in the back of the lens. These features may be important for you, especially if you shoot sports or if you're shooting video and you need to be able to use neutral density filters. But for me personally, I probably won't use them. Build quality on all three of these lenses is absolutely top-notch. I don't think I could point to one of these and say that it's built nicer than the others. Although one thing that I did notice right out of the box is just how light Sony's version of this lens is. The Sigma version is significantly heavier. All right, it's my first day out with the Sigma 300-600. This is the Sony a7 IV. Let's see what I can get. In my last super telephoto lens video, there was this cockatoo and I could never get a great shot of her or him. He's still a little too far away for the 600 millimeter. All right, the second I drove away, the cockatoo flies off and you can hear it behind me. It's super loud. So I was able to follow it. And finally, I get to a spot where 600 millimeters is perfect. So I just looked at the shots on the back of the camera. I think I got some. I need to get back to the computer to really look, but I am drenched in sweat. I've been standing in the sun, holding up this gigantic lens, trying to rack focus to get this damn bird in focus. I think I pulled it off, but I honestly need a shower right now. Now I have literally shot thousands of images in the last week with each one of these lenses. And when I get back onto the computer and I look at these files at 400%, I can't tell a difference in image quality. The color looks the same, the sharpness, the contrast, it looks the exact same. So I thought we need to do a more scientific test. On the left, we have the Sigma at 600. On the right, we have the Sony 600. And when I compare both of these lenses at 400%, they look almost identical to me. Both of these lenses look fantastic. Maybe the Sony looks a little cleaner in the far, far edge. But if we slide over just the slightest bit here, again, they look almost identical. Okay, now on the left, we have the Sony 600. And on the right, we have the Sony 400 to 800 zoomed into 600. Remember, we've got an aperture difference here. The Sony 600 is wide open at F4, and the 400 to 800 is wide open at F8. So a two-stop difference here. And when we zoom in to 400%, I cannot believe I am saying this, but the 400 to 800, it looks very similar, maybe even a little bit sharper in the extreme edge here. Maybe the 600 looks slightly sharper, but if I scroll over just the slightest bit, once again, I feel like the 400 to 800 is just a little bit sharper. I also did a bokeh test, and each one of these lenses has the absolute most beautiful bokeh. The out-of-focus area, especially when you're shooting at F4 with these two larger lenses, is just buttery smooth. But even the cheaper lens at F8 looks incredible. And when I stop down the other two lenses, they all look so similar to me. Now, when Sigma told me that they were sending me this lens, I was aware that Sony has put a frames-per-second limitation on third-party lenses. I knew that this lens would be capped at 15 frames per second. And for me, even when I'm shooting birds that are flying around, honestly, 15 frames per second is enough. Now, the other thing that I was really excited to test was a 2X teleconverter. And in case you're unfamiliar with what this little piece does here, it magnifies the image from a lens, and it basically crops in on the image. It gives you two times the reach, but you also lose two stops of light. So I got this teleconverter, I put it on my camera, I put it on the Sigma lens, and nothing. Screen was black. I looked into it, and apparently Sony does not allow their teleconverters to work with third-party lenses. Okay, that's annoying, but I'll go ahead and find the Sigma version. And I look online, and I find many different Sigma teleconverters for many different camera brands, but no Sony. I look into it, and apparently Sony has banned third-party companies from making their own teleconverters. So not only are they limiting the frames per second of this lens to 15, they are also forcing you to use it as it is right now, and you will never be able to use a teleconverter with it to extend your reach. That's insane to me. So I was very disappointed, but I was excited to try my teleconverter with the 400 to 800, making it a 1600 millimeter lens. Now remember, you lose two stops of light. And so my F8 lens became an F16 lens. And so the lens only works with a 2X teleconverter when you're in like complete bright daylight. Other than that, it's just not gonna work at all. Your ISO is gonna go to infinity, and the pictures are gonna look horrible. But when I got back to the computer, and I looked at images that I had shot in direct sunlight, and I zoomed into them, they didn't look great. Everything that I love about each one of these lenses, all of the detail and crispness and contrast, that was kind of out the window. The images looked soft and dull, and I just thought, all right, 2X teleconverter isn't for me, until I tried it on Sony's 600 millimeter. I was expecting the teleconverter to take a huge hit on my sharpness and detail. I couldn't see it. These shots looked amazing. I did a wall test on both lenses with the teleconverter, and I was getting very similar results. Incredible resolution out of the 600 millimeter. Very soft, dull images out of the 400 to 800. When you zoom in here, you will see a pretty big difference. Notice just how much sharper the 600 millimeter lens is here. This is night and day. I was expecting the teleconverter to kill the detail on all of these lenses, but somehow the 600 millimeter lens looks the same, if not better. And you can see just how much worse the 400 to 800 looks here. I don't know if this is an issue with the glass itself, or this is an issue of diffraction. And looking at the edges here, it's even worse. And look at this, I am shooting wide open here at F16. That is as wide as the lens can get when it has a 2X teleconverter on it. I'm at 1 800th of a second, just because I'm shooting at 1200 millimeters. I don't wanna get any camera shake. And this is forcing me to shoot at ISO 4000. And this is the brightest possible situation I will ever be using this lens in. So you can see a 2X teleconverter on an already slow lens is not a good combination. Autofocus on the Sony A9 III and each one of these lenses is incredible. I really didn't notice any speed difference at all. The autofocus on each one of these lenses is almost instant and flawless. Optical stabilization though, is another story. The two cheaper lenses have significantly better stabilization than Sony 600 millimeter. In this test right now, I am hand holding each one of these lenses at 600 millimeters. You might be thinking that I forgot to turn on optical stabilization on the Sony 600, but I assure you it's on, it's just that bad. And optical stabilization can be a big deal on a 100 millimeter lens. And when you move all the way up to 600 or 800 or 1200, when you put the teleconverter on, optical stabilization is a massive feature. And I was shocked to see how bad it was on Sony's most expensive lens. I was just sitting here watching TV and a hummingbird lands right on this little twig right here. Look at how small this is. Somehow I am so lucky. I've got my Sigma 300 to 600 sitting right next to me. I stand up, I start taking pictures. And as I walk closer, I very quickly reached the end of the minimum focusing distance. I couldn't believe it. I thought for sure a 600 millimeter lens would be able to focus on a really small object. That is not the case. Now there is one serious issue that I have with both 600 millimeter lenses, and that is their minimum focusing distance. And if you're shooting small animals like a hummingbird, these lenses may not be the best option. Here you can see I shot a small bottle of hot sauce with each one of these lenses. The 400 to 800 is the clear winner here. Now for four days, I shot with each one of these lenses completely handheld. And if you're just shooting quick little bursts, not a big deal. Even this really heavy, large lens, you can do it. But the second you find something really cool that you wanna shoot, and maybe it's this animal and it's moving around just a little bit, and you wanna take a lot of shots of it, and you're holding this lens up and you're trying to keep the subject in the frame, it will wear your ass out. So this is the first time I have attempted to use this on a tripod. Everything else I've been doing has been handheld, and it is tiring holding this thing up. As you can imagine, it's way easier with a tripod. However, you're definitely not as nimble. So if you were trying to shoot a quick subject, you're not gonna be able to do it with a tripod. Obviously for things like video, you gotta be on a tripod. Spotting animals with your eyes is pretty easy, but then lifting up one of these lenses, 600 millimeters, 800 millimeters, up to your eye, and trying to find where that bird is in the tree when you're looking through the viewfinder and all you're seeing is blurry leaves is incredibly difficult and incredibly tiring. Every time I bring the camera away from my face to look at the bird again, I'm moving the lens and I'm having to restart every single time trying to place that bird in the frame. If you have a tripod, you can easily look at the screen or the viewfinder, keep the camera perfectly stationary, and then look up at the animal and fine tune what you're pointed towards. So I did end up missing many shots because I had a tripod. As I'm setting up, the bird flies away. But I think in the long run, I actually got more shots because I was able to use the 2X teleconverter to make this a 1200 millimeter lens, and on the tripod, I could shoot animals from a much further distance, and I could more quickly find them in the frame and start taking the shots of the video. Now, a couple of months ago, when I reviewed the 400-800, I exclusively shot with this lens on Sony's top of the line A9 III, which has insane autofocus, insane 120 frames per second raw shooting. It has pre-capture, which allows you to take pictures in the background, and then when you press the shutter button, it records images in the past. That's great for subjects that are moving, like a bird flying away or something like that. And when I did that review, I had the feeling that not only would I have to buy this $3,000 lens, I would also have to buy the six or $7,000 camera, and it was just too much for me. But during this review, I jumped between the Sony A9 III and my much more affordable and older Sony A9 IV, and I was actually getting better results out of the Sony A9 IV. It has more resolution, it has better ISO performance, and 90% of the time, I'm shooting stationary subjects anyway. So yes, the Sony A9 III has better autofocus and better tracking, but if most of the birds that I'm shooting are just sitting on a branch, I don't really need it. All right, in conclusion, what are my thoughts on all three lenses? Let's start with the Sigma 300-600 F4. This lens is incredibly large, it's incredibly heavy, and at $6,600, it's certainly not cheap. However, for what it is and what this lens is capable of doing, $6,600 is actually a bargain. I have three problems with this lens. One, the minimum focusing distance. If you're shooting small animals like little bitty birds, like a hummingbird, I'm not sure this is the right lens. It's just not gonna get close enough. And then my other two issues have nothing to do with Sigma or this lens and everything to do with Sony. It's the fact that you can only shoot up to 15 frames per second, which honestly for me is enough, but for some of you, it may not be. And the fact that Sony has blocked them from using their teleconverter and has blocked them from creating their own teleconverter. This 2X teleconverter on the Sony 600 millimeter lens is magic, and it's so upsetting to know that this lens is capable of being a 1200 millimeter lens, but Sony just won't let it happen. The Sony 600 millimeter F4 is really worse than the Sigma in almost every way. It's gonna give you very similar image quality, but you don't have the ability to zoom. It also has significantly worse optical stabilization. And of course, the worst part of all is the price. This lens costs $14,100. The only benefit that this lens has is that it can shoot up to 120 frames per second and that you can use the 2X teleconverter. And again, that is just some arbitrary rule that Sony has set. And finally, we have the Sony 400 to 800. This lens costs just $3,300, certainly not cheap, but cheap in comparison. And I am just blown away by this lens. The image quality out of this lens was just as good as these two much more expensive lenses. Yes, you are losing two stops of light, but you're saving thousands of dollars and you're getting a lens that is much more manageable, easier to pack, easier to travel with, much more convenient to carry and hold. And you're getting an extra 200 millimeters of reach. Remember, this is an 800 millimeter lens and these two are 600 millimeters. There's no doubt that Sigma's 300 to 600 is the best lens of the bunch. This lens is incredible. But for the average photographer that doesn't shoot wildlife or sports photography as your profession, and you're looking for something that's a little bit more affordable and a little bit easier to carry around, I would definitely say check out the 400 to 800. It's also an amazing buy. Over the last week, I have been so excited to wake up every day and immediately go out and try to find more wildlife to shoot. I cannot remember a time that I have been this excited to take pictures. If you've never given much thought to wildlife photography, give it a try. Get one of these super telephoto lenses. It is so much fun. It'll get you outside. It'll get you exercising. You'll get to take beautiful images that you can hang in your house. Again, just try it. You're gonna love it. Guys, thank you for watching. If you happen to be a photographer, check out our photography contest. They're 100% free to join, fstoppers.com slash contest. And if you wanna go pro or you wanna take your business to the next level, check out fstoppers.com slash store. We've got a ton of different tutorials on a ton of different genres of photography. Check it all out, fstoppers.com slash store.