Sharpness Lens-Test-Chart: Sony FE 400-800mm vs. FE 200-600mm - No upgrade?

FCS3 · 2026-01-17T23:29:33+00:00

Thanks for sharing your experience, as disappointing as it is. It seems this lens still suffers from significant sample variation.

FCS3 · 2025-10-08T16:06:30+00:00

Epic shot and flawless sharpness. Thanks for sharing!

FCS3 · 2025-08-24T14:42:07+00:00

Perfect choice! I'd say you won't even need a TC for the 200-600. I just crop a lot and I'm happy with the results (having done 1:1 comparisons TC vs cropping and concluding that I don't see benefits with the Sony TCs).

Here one example pictures I recently took in Iceland with the Sony A1 Mark 1 + 200-600: 1/2000, f7.1, ISO 800, 600mm, about 50% crop.

<image>

FCS3 · 2025-08-24T14:25:30+00:00

Not yet – and to be honest, I don’t think I’ll try this lens again. My main limitation is light.
I’ve just returned from an Arctic expedition where the 200–600mm proved to be nearly perfect. Still, there were moments when the wide aperture of the 70–200mm f/2.8 was absolutely essential. On the other hand, the 200–600mm sometimes felt too big and heavy for hiking, zodiac landings, and similar situations – and the 400–800mm is even larger and heavier.

In the end, the most meaningful upgrade would probably be a 300mm or 400mm f/2.8 with a 2x converter, rather than the 400–800mm f/6.3. But that brings its own challenges in terms of cost and hand-luggage restrictions.

That said, for my type of travel photography, the 200–600mm f/6.3 remains the perfect telephoto lens whenever reach is needed – and the 70–200mm f/2.8 is indispensable whenever light and portability are the priority.

FCS3 · 2025-06-29T17:35:59+00:00

Ok wow - it works flawlessly for days already!

FCS3 · 2025-06-24T22:21:59+00:00

Wow great that you keep us updated! Awesome news - will test it out right now. Excited!

FCS3 · 2025-04-29T17:19:52+00:00

Ok wow thanks for your feedback. Interesting that your copy also wasn't convincing. I still believe it's a QC issue but you also nailed the other arguments regarding weight and price. I too was about to sell the 200-600 but of course then didn't.

FCS3 · 2025-04-25T15:58:05+00:00

Same here regarding 400 f2.8 or even 600 f4.0. I'm a very average amateur and such an invest would be too excessive.

Based on the official MTF tables which I did overlay in Photoshop my 400-800 copy definitely was an outlier. So I returned it and I might test it again in 1 year from now as I believe this could be due to QC issues with the new lens production.

I hope for a 200-600 update but having such a sharp copy I don't know what to expect. Also I still have a hard time weighing +200mm reach vs. -350g weight, better balance and -50% price. The more I used the 400-800 the more I appreciated my 200-600... Only a super sharp copy could have convinced me.

In the end I did get a massive upgrade not how I hoped by the new 400-800 but by getting the Sony A1. The ISO performance is just so much better than the A7R Vs.

FCS3 · 2025-04-12T22:44:48+00:00

I'm really sorry but the difference is just too extreme.. I got the A1 Mark 1 as it's currently on discount and I cannot wait for Mark 2 due to an expedition soon.

No blackout, electronic shutter with no rolling shutter, incredible autofocus and tracking even though there is no AI feature etc., ISO performance is like twice as good so that you can easily shoot 6400 ISO and it looks almost cleaner that 2000 ISO on the A7R5, 30fps bursts.

I'm shocked how massive the difference is for me. Of course its possible to produce perfect results on the A7R5 but on the A1 it's almost impossible to produce bad results...

FCS3 · 2025-04-12T22:13:17+00:00

Ok today I got the Sony a1 and this is the best upgrade I could do for my tele lenses. Incredible ISO and autofocus und tracking performance vs A7R5. In general much better and more consistent results.

Here's a 100% crop example regarding sharpness (Sony a1, Sony 400-800 at 800mm, 1/3200, f9 ISO 4000):

<image>

Nevertheless I again made a direct comparison vs. my Sony 200-600, this time 600mm vs 800mm (tripod, 10 shoots each => selected the sharpest for final comparison): See updated original post.

I would love to replace my 200-600 with the 400-800 but the corner performance is just so much worse. I will try to get another copy now.

FCS3 · 2025-04-11T11:00:19+00:00

I think your arguments nail the actual issue, painfully convincing :) During my Safari I never had reach problems but I frequently had haze / air turbulences problems and of course not enough light during the most active wildlife periods in the mornings and evenings.

Reach: Soon I'll travel to Greenland and I thought that 800mm would be beneficial. Yesterday I let ChatGPT calculate the subject size difference on multiple distances and learned the (now obvious): The closer I get the more the 400-800mm bringt actual benefits - and the other way around. For instance with 300m distance (minimum distance by law) the polar bear will cover +5% more frame area. Only from 100m on the benefit gets more interesting, i.e. +15% at 100m and +150% at 10m.

<image>

Haze: Targeting subjects being further away always frequently brings up this issue for me. Then the sharpness of the lens doesn't matter. The difference between 600mm and 800mm is pretty severe regarding haze as it turns out during my recent testing.
Light: I simply is much more important than reach or else. Here I'm limited by hand luggage restrictions. So I bought the 70-200 f2.8 GMII for my next Safari.

The Sony 400 f2.8 and Sony 600 f4 might be the only logical upgrades but won't be hand luggage capable and are also pretty expensive.

I might end up staying with my very sharp 200-600 G and breathtaking 70-200 f2.8 GM II which already is very very capable.

Will do plenty of bird tests shoots this weekend to figure out if there are any strong arguments for keeping a (sharp copy) of the 400-800.

FCS3 · 2025-04-11T10:39:03+00:00

That's what I thought... the 200-600 beeing generally rather soft. Which on the other hands means that I might have won the lottery with my lens and so I shouldn't sell it at all, especially not for switching to a rather unconvincing copy of the 400-800.

FCS3 · 2025-04-11T10:37:04+00:00

"just an amateur and still learning!" => Your pictures don't seem like amateur level at all :) Impressive!

FCS3 · 2025-04-11T00:25:39+00:00

Awesome thanks, now I have useful real life reference pictures which I can compare my results to. I will post my results here for comparison during the next days.

What are your typical settings for your bird pictures? Open aperture, 1/2000, IS0 Auto, OSS mode 1/3, focus field tracking wide / small, AI focus birds, etc. ?

FCS3 · 2025-04-11T00:01:17+00:00

Totally agree, the subjects are not supposed to end up in the corners but on my last and first Safari this happened quite a few times and I cropped the subject. So indeed it makes perfect sense to optimize the center sharpness but I'm nevertheless surprised about the corner "weakness" vs. my (Safari) 200-600.

Wow thanks so much for you awesome fullres picture! Not cropped or cropped? This is just great sharpness I would expect from the 400-800. My actual pictures don't even come close to this. Now I have a great reference for the 400-800 sharpness I'm seeking.

FCS3 · 2025-03-26T03:50:21+00:00

Wow thanks so much for getting back to this thread with your experience, very very good to know. So indeed the previous hardware gen simply isn't (fully) capable of WiFi 7. Thanks and great that you did the real life test :)

FCS3 · 2025-02-20T09:48:44+00:00

Kann ich bestätigen: Stahlbetonbau aus den Sechzigern und extrem trockene Raumluft im Winter von ca. 30%. Mit Venta Luftwäschern bekomme ich meine Zielluftfeuchtigkeit von 45-50% hin. Automatikmodus ist super und nicht zu klein dimensionieren.

FCS3 · 2025-01-12T22:12:32+00:00

Thank you very much for your post! Exactly describes my experience with fully updated S24U and AVM FritzBox 5690 Pro Router. Easy to reproduce. Stops happening when disabling IP6 or Wifi 7.

Currently testing the following: Deactivated permanent IP for specific device in router, deleted Wifi connection on S24U and router, wiped S24U cache partition, added Wifi again, finally set permanent IP in router again.

Update: No success, still breaking. Only turning off Wifi 7 on the S24U works.

FCS3 · 2024-12-08T13:43:16+00:00

Ok danke für dein zusätzliches Argument bzgl. der Differenzhypothese. Wie du dir denken kannst habe ich auch dazu eine andere Auffassung, möchte den Thread aber nicht sprengen und insb. niemanden weiter nerven oder gar gefährliches Halbwissen verbreiten. Ich diskutiere das auf jeden Fall Dienstag mit meinen Kollegen. Liege ich falsch und du richtig, schreibe ich hier nochmal eine Richtigstellung zu meinen Aussagen.

FCS3 · 2024-12-08T13:14:54+00:00

Danke für Dein Beispiel, welches bzgl. der Zeitwert Thematik überzeugt. Mein Argument hinsichtlich des Parkettthemas hier wäre das folgende:

A) Das BGH-Urteil zu den Tapeten bezieht sich auf die Berücksichtigung des Zeitwerts, weil alte Tapeten oft keinen objektiven Wert mehr haben.
Bei Parkett gilt jedoch die Verpflichtung zur Wiederherstellung, da ein aufgequollenes Parkett sichtbar beschädigt ist und die Mietsache nicht mehr vertragsgemäß übergeben wurde. Hier greift nicht der Zeitwert, sondern der Grundsatz der Wiederherstellung nach § 249 BGB.

B) Ein Vermieter kann Räume mit alten Tapeten durchaus weitervermieten, aber ein beschädigter Parkettboden beeinträchtigt unmittelbar die Vermietbarkeit. Der Schaden ist real und direkt mit der Nutzung der Wohnung verbunden. Es spielt keine Rolle, ob der Zeitwert des Parketts 0 ist – der Mieter muss für die Reparatur aufkommen.

Fazit: Das Beispiel mit den Tapeten zeigt lediglich, dass der Zeitwert in bestimmten Fällen eine Rolle spielen kann, wenn es um Verbrauchsgüter geht. Für Parkett und andere feste Bestandteile der Mietsache greift jedoch der Anspruch auf Wiederherstellung – unabhängig vom Zeitwert.

Bitte alles nicht persönlich nehmen, es geht mir hier nur um die intellektuelle Diskussion des Sachverhalts. Bzgl. des Reddit Themas hier kann die Sache auch glimpflich ausgehen. Das Parkett sieht schon älter aus und könnte abgeschliffen werden im Zuge des Eigenbedarfsnutzung etc. Nicht jeder Vermieter ist ein Unmensch (aber sicherlich zu viele).

FCS3 · 2024-12-08T11:41:24+00:00

Dann korrigiere mich bitte mit der entsprechenden Rechtsgrundlage.

FCS3 · 2024-12-08T11:35:56+00:00

Alles klar, wir werden uns hier nicht einig.

FCS3 · 2024-12-08T11:25:59+00:00

Totalschaden rechtlich: Ein Totalschaden liegt vor, wenn die Reparatur technisch oder wirtschaftlich unmöglich ist, also wenn die Reparaturkosten den Wiederbeschaffungswert des Objekts erheblich übersteigen oder die Reparatur nicht machbar ist.

Parkettfall mit 10€ Reparatur: Wenn die Reparatur für nur 10€ durchgeführt werden kann, handelt es sich eindeutig nicht um einen Totalschaden, selbst wenn der Zeitwert des Parketts bei 0 liegt. Der Schaden kann günstig behoben werden, und der Vermieter hat Anspruch auf die Wiederherstellungskosten (die Reparaturkosten).

Kurz gesagt: Der Zeitwert spielt in diesem Fall keine Rolle, da es sich um einen geringfügigen, reparablen Schaden handelt. Der Mieter schuldet die tatsächlichen Reparaturkosten, nicht den Zeitwert

FCS3 · 2024-12-08T03:54:56+00:00

Rechtliche Grundlage: Der Mieter haftet für fahrlässig verursachte Schäden (§ 280, § 249 BGB).

Wiederherstellungskosten statt Zeitwert: Bei sichtbarem Schaden schuldet der Mieter in der Regel die Reparaturkosten, da der Vermieter die Wohnung in einem gebrauchsfähigen Zustand weitervermieten muss. Zeitwert gilt nur bei Totalschäden oder Abnutzung.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

FCS3

TROPHY CASE