The camera world is absolutely awash in supertelephoto zoom lenses right now, and there are plenty of options out there with varying capabilities and price points. This excellent video comparison takes a look at two of the best options, the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports and the Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS.
Coming to you from Dustin Abbott, this awesome video comparison takes a look at the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports and the Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS. Supertelephoto zoom lenses have become quite popular in the last few years, with many manufacturers creating their own versions, all of which offer useful focal length ranges at relatively affordable prices. And with the high-ISO and autofocus capabilities of modern camera bodies, the smaller apertures of such lenses (as compared to a lens like a 400mm f/2.8) are not the hindrance they used to be. And while apertures like f/5.6 might seem too narrow in terms of their ability to isolate subjects, remember that at such extreme focal lengths, you get rather narrow depth of field and do not always need super-wide apertures for that purpose. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Abbott.
I'm waiting for a "real" supertelephoto zoom lens to be made in a mirrorless mount.
By "real supertelephoto zoom", I mean something akin to the Canon 200-400mm f4 with the built-in 1.4 extender, or the Sigma 300-800mm f5.6 or the Sigma 200-500mm f2.8
So far, the only supertelephoto zooms in mirrorless mounts that I am aware of are relatively small lenses that put size, weight, and cost ahead of ultimate reach and ultimate light-gathering ability.
Sure, the current mirrorless supertelephoto zooms are very good for what they are, but we need to remember that they are designed with a priority on practicality and affordability, and compromises have been made to keep them portable and affordable. I think it's time for a few new supertelephoto zooms without such compromises.
But they are cheap and sale like hotcakes.
But, how practical is the Sigma 200-500mm f2.8, though? I don't see or hear too many wildlife photographers using these. And, $26,000 ain't no chump change. The price will no doubt only increase for a mirrorless version. With these behemoths, you're better off just sticking to a DSLR since you'll be using a tripod anyways.
The 200-500mm f2.8 isn't very practical at all, in my opinion. But the concept of "best", or "ultimate", and practicality don't usually go together very well.
If one is discussing the "most useful" or the "most practical" supertelephoto zoom lens, then of course the 200-500mm f2.8 shouldn't be in that discussion. But if one is discussing the "very best" or "ultimate" supertelephoto zoom lenses, then it is certainly a candidate.
Tom, I don't think you're going to be satisfied until you can mount the Hubble Telescope to your camera.
Must say it is refreshing to see new YouTube faces doing reviews. People that look like they actually know what they are talking about, instead of the same old, click bait, talking heads.
This was a well rounded comparison between the two lenses, without the black & white syndrome, that one is good so the much be trash, the click biters suffer from.
Find more of those, please.
Dustin Abbott has been around for a long while now. He goes very in depth and isn't very biased with his gear reviews. He does have a love for certain things like MF lenses and a few brands but never tries to persuade you based on brand loyalty.
While I would prefer a Z mount lens, both of those would work for me. I'd be more inclined to the Sony; the G glass is supposed to quite good.