NewsSony FE 400 f/4.5 GM and 600 f/6.3 GM announced, both under 1kg

Sony announced today two new super telephoto primes, the FE 400mm f/4.5 GM OSS and the FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS. Both are around 995g, which is really light for this class. Prices are $2,699 for the 400 and $3,699 for the 600, shipping from 15 October.

I don't shoot birds, but for outdoor football the 400 f/4.5 is very interesting compared to the 200-600, which I rented twice and found heavy for a full match handheld. Nikon has had the 600 PF for some time, so this looks like Sony's answer.

I am curious what the bird people here think. Is a light 600 f/6.3 prime the better choice than the zoom for most people, or is zoom flexibility more important? Happy to answer questions.

Well well, welcome to the club, Sony folks. ;-)

Seriously though, those are nice numbers. Under a kilo for a 600 used to be pure fantasy. FWIW I hear folks have been waiting months on the Nikon 600 PF lately, so if Sony can actually ship these on time they'll sell every one they make.

To your question, Dmitri, for birds I'd take the light prime over the zoom for most people who already know they live at the long end. I'm at 600 on my 180-600 nearly all day, and I could count on one hand the times I've zoomed out for a bird this year. When I started shooting birds a 600 was a lens you needed a second mortgage and a Sherpa for, and you sat in one spot all day because moving it was a production. Where the zoom wins is the stuff that walks up to you... javelinas at the water trough, grandkids, the dog. For your football I'd think the 400 at f/4.5 is the sweet spot, and a lot kinder on the shoulder by the second half.

• Walt

dmitri_k said:

$3,699 for the 600

That probably means about £3,500 here lol. I don't shoot birds. I am not buying a 600mm lens. Writing that down so you can all hold me to it

dmitri_k said:

Both are around 995g

The 400 f/4.5 under a kilo... that's lighter than the 200-600 by a LOT. Not for me on an a6400 budget but it's nice to dream.

Steve

The 600 at f/6.3 is the interesting one. A light 600 prime changes how far you're willing to walk to a hide, and that's where the birds actually are. Zoom flexibility matters less than people think for birding. Most of the time you're at the long end wishing for more anyway.

fen_and_field said:

Most of the time you're at the long end wishing for more anyway.

This is what I heard also from bird photographers I know. For sport it is the opposite, players come close to you.

Light lens means more people walking further into places they shouldn't. Watch the nesting sites next spring. Every time gear gets lighter and cheaper the owls get more company.

5amJim said:

Watch the nesting sites next spring.

Grim but probably true. For me the weight is the headline. My 180-600 is the heaviest thing I own and I'd love a lighter option for long walks. Nikon side, I know, but it's nice to see the whole category getting lighter!

fen_and_field said:

A light 600 prime changes how far you're willing to walk

Hiker here, and this is it exactly. Under a kilo is the number that matters. I've left the house without a long lens on every trip for years because of weight. A 400 f/4.5 at that weight could actually come up a mountain with the A7CR. Not at that price though.

Expect a lot of these on the used market in two years, from people who bought them for the idea of wildlife photography. That's when I'd buy. Same thing happened with every big lens launch I've seen. People buy the dream, shoot it three times, realize wildlife means sitting in a ditch at 5am, and sell.

cdalton dropping the cold truth. Also reckon most people are better off with a 200-600 they can zoom out on, no offence fen

None taken. We'll compare notes in two years.