Gear Review: Sony 600mm f4

Finally, I got the chance to try out the big guns. I recently rented the Sony 600mm f4 prime lens for a trip to Yellowstone, and wow was I impressed. With a $130000 price tag, this is the most expensive lens in Sony's lineup. However, do the pictures it takes really justify that absurd amount of money? Let's find out!

Size

This is an absolute behemoth of a lens. Coming in at 6.5 inches wide and 17.75 inches long at 6.7 lbs, they really don't make them bigger than this. Compared to the 200-600mm lens that I usually use, that's about 2 lbs heavier which really does make hand holding a struggle. You will seriously need to consider hitting the gym if you want to use this without a support, otherwise tripods or monopods are going to be another investment that you'll have to make with it.

As a prime lens, being at a fixed focal length removes any distraction of changing focal lengths or getting any sort of extension out. This lens stays the size that is does, though you can certainly remove the lens hood to reduce that though I wouldn't recommend it.

Image Quality

Let's be honest, this is the part that most people care about. Both the 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4 are the best of the best regardless of camera brand, and they have price tags that match. With that said, I'm not convinced that the 600mm f4 delivers photos that are $11000 better than my existing 200-600mm.

This grizzly bear was a a perfect test subject, but I feel like the lens was a bit soft at a distance.

When you can actually get your subject to fill up you frame like this fox, then it really shines.

At the 600mm length, you're using this lens because you anticipate your subjects being farther away from you. Yellowstone is the exact type of place that you would want this type of gear. Frequently at some of these longer distances however, I really noticed the lens struggled. Getting details out of fur and the faces of wildlife is always the goal, but frequently I would get soft images even when using a support. I honestly felt like I could get comparable images with my 200-600mm, though that gap become much more noticeable when subjects are closer up.

This grizzly bear was about100-200 yards away, yet I was shocked at how unsharp most of my shots were

At some of the longer distances I tried adding a 2x teleconverter to get my subject to fill up the frame and hopefully get a better shot. Unfortunately I found that setup basically unusable. With the 2x you're shooting at 12000mm f8, and the image quality really suffers at that point.

This black wolf image, while certainly far away, just made me take off the 2x for the rest of my trip

There is a reason why camera manufacturers don't make lenses like a 1200mm f8 natively. There are just basic physics limitation to getting sharp images at that range, and while I have heard before that the 2x teleconverter isn't the best, it still should have done better with the 600mm f4. In many ways I wish I had used the 1.4x instead.

Focal Length

Probably the biggest trade off between a prime and a zoom lens it the loss of flexibility. If your subject moves closer to you, you're just out of luck because your lens is now too long and cramped. Now if you know your subjects are going to be at the long end of that 600mm range, then you have a recipe for success.

Wildlife in Yellowstone is often times far off of the road, so a 600mm lens shines here

Unfortunately you can be left struggling when subjects come too close and you can't zoom out

Yellowstone for example is the exact environment when you have subjects far enough to justify that this sort of length. Southern Africa however, is going to get you a lot closer to your subjects and then 600mm is too much. It really is a dependent on what you shoot and where you shoot them.

With that said, I would never recommend this to be the only lens in your arsenal. You ideally would want to have a second camera body with a shorter focal length like a 70-200 or maybe even a 24-70. Swapping to a different camera can be a bit annoying when coming from a zoom lens that you simply turn on a dial on, but it beats missing out on a subject that gets too close.

It can get a little cramped at 600mm, especially when wildlife just get up right next to you

Aperture

One of the biggest appeals of this lens though is that sweet f4 aperture. With my 200-600mm, when I'm at the 600mm range I'm shooting at 6.3 which can be difficult to create nice blurry background unless my subject is filling my whole frame. I barely need to worry about my background with the 600mm f4 because I know it will make it completely negligible. It's obviously not going to totally destroy it like at a f2.8, but it's still amazing to have at this range.

Shooting at f4 also gives you much more flexibility when it comes to your shutter speeds and ISO values. I shoot mostly manual, so being able to drop my ISO in lowlight conditions when wildlife is most active is hugely important for me. I then don't have to compromise my shutter speed to unsafe levels (most of the time), which all in all makes for a much easier photographic experience when I don't have to pay as much attention to my settings.

If your focus is on predators like big cats, bears, etc. then you know how important it is to have gear that works in lowlight. Yellowstone was tricky in the sense that you had to be lucky to find your subject at that time of day, whereas hopefully in places like Africa you should know where they are ahead of time and be ready to make the most out of that f4 aperture.

This elk photo was taken right before sunrise, so shooting at f4 was hugely important

Ultimately at this focal length, there just simply isn't a better aperture than f4. Would I love a 600mm f2.8? Sure! But I bet it would cost both of my kidneys and I'd need a bionic arm just to hold it. And honestly I have found that f4 is a sweet spot for wildlife and this lens specifically.

Conclusion

Overall, I realize this review is a bit mixed. For the Sony 600mm f4, when it shines it really shines. But those conditions have to be very specific with specific subjects. If you're finding yourself wanting to fill your frame with your subjects and know they're going to hang around at that 600mm range then this is the lens for you. If you're getting it trying to make those dots 2 miles away look like crisp and sharp animals, then you may be a bit disappointed. Still, at almost $13000 I personally didn't feel like it took THAT much better photos than my 200-600mm. Maybe I just got a bad rental copy, but I suspect others would echo my sentiment. If I was able to get it at a decent or reduced rate then obviously I'd love to have it. Otherwise, I'm happy to just rent it every once in awhile when I need it.

Disclosure: I am not a Sony Ambassador and Sony did not contribute to this review. All my gear is purchased out of pocket, and the thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own.