I’ve been a Sony ambassador (they call them Artisans) for nearly 10 years now. Over the years they’ve reached out to me a few times to test out a prerelease camera or lens before it was announced. While I’m always appreciative for the opportunity, I can’t say the gear has ever been something that really changed my photography. The Sony 300mm f/2.8 was close, but I ended up not buying one.
But last month I was invited to test out an upcoming lens. The moment I saw what it was I texted my Sony contact: “I’m 100% in… how soon can you send it”. (there may have been some expletives in there because I was so excited) 😉
The lens was the newly announced (Feb 2025) Sony 400-800mm f.6.3 to f/8 – and the moment I saw it, I really hoped this would be my new favorite wildlife photography lens. I had about 4 weeks with the lens to test it out, so my photos and review are below.
Rather than rehash all of the specs that you can already read about out there, I thought I’d share a little self-FAQ on the lens to help you figure out if it’s something you’d be interested in. Here goes:
(Side Note: All photos taken with the Sony a1 ii and the 400-800mm lens)
Q. What did you like best about the lens?
A. The size vs. focal length is the number 1 selling point for me. With bird and wildlife photography I usually can’t get close enough so I always want more reach. And now I don’t have to bring a huge lens out to get it.
Q. Don’t you have the Sony 200-600mm lens though? Isn’t that enough?
A. For my style of bird photography, I can usually not get close enough. Sure, I could put a teleconverter on it, but that comes with it’s own limitations. For what I shoot and how I shoot it, I’ll take longer any day.
Q. Are you upset that they went with 400-800mm instead of a wider 200-800mm range?
A. Not one bit. In fact, the lack of the 200-400mm range is a selling point for me. Sony mentioned they had examined metadata for some popular competing lenses out there and any lens that was in that 200-800 range all had one thing in common… most photos were taken at the long end of the range of the lens. So I did some checking on my own because I primarily shoot birds and wildlife with my Sony 200-600mm, and I wondered what focal length I shoot at the most. As I expected, over 80% of my photos were taken at 600mm, and less than 2% of them were taken at 200mm. That 200mm to 400mm range is typically useless for me and what I personally shoot, so I’m happy they did away with it in this lens.
Q. Are there any advantages to not having that 200-400mm range in the lens?
A. There are. For starters, adding that extra range would cause the lens to weigh more. Also, photo quality typically drops off on those wider ranged telephoto zoom lenses. So, having only 400-800mm helps with both the weight of the lens as well as the quality of the image.
Q. How does it compare with the Canon 200-800mm?
A. I have no idea. I shoot Sony and I’m happy and I have no reason to switch. Even if I weren’t a Sony Ambassador, I’d still shoot Sony because I like it.
Remember… Only YouTube “influencers” and website reviewers, who get sent gear from multiple companies to use and test out, actually shoot with multiple brands. The rest of the world can’t afford to constantly switch brands. And at this point in the game, where all brands produce excellent quality wildlife gear, there would be no reason to switch.
Q. How big is it and how much does the lens weigh in comparison to the Sony 100-400mm or the 200-600mm?
A. The 400-800mm weighs in at 4.66 lbs.
The 100-400mm weighs 3.1 lbs
And the 200-600mm weighs 4.65 lbs.
However, I believe the weight on the 400-800mm doesn’t include the lens foot, so that’ll probably add a few ounces.
Overall, it is a little bigger than the 200-600mm. And while on paper it doesn’t seem to weigh more, it does feel a bit heavier. Not much though, but if you’re some one who thought the 200-600mm was too heavy, and looking for something lighter, this ain’t it.
Q. Is this an internal zoom lens like the 200-600mm (meaning it doesn’t extend out when you zoom)?
A. Yep.
Q. How did the lens focus and was it sharp?
A. I’m shooting with an a1 so asking about focus is kind of cheating. That camera is amazing at focussing, and at this point I’m pretty much just a button pusher. Most of the effort and skill these days is spent trying to get my camera in front of something great in great light, rather than worrying about buttons, dials and settings.
But focus was fantastic. I’m used to using the 200-600mm (which has always been spot on for focussing speed) and I didn’t notice anything different from that. Here’s a little video if you want to see it in action.
Side Note: Before you criticize my framing and shaky-ness, keep in mind I’m shooting hand held with a Ninja video monitor on top of the camera. It adds weight to an already heavy setup and because of the HDMI monitor, the viewfinder screen is no longer functional when it’s on. so you have to hold the camera out in front of you like an iPhone. Needless to say, it’s about 10+ lbs and it gets heavy 😉
Q. Is there anything you don’t like about the lens?
A. If I could wish for one thing to improve on this lens it would be the widest aperture at 800mm. At 800mm, which is primarily what I shot it at, you’re at f/8. Since I’m typically at 1/3200th of a second when shooting most birds in action, the ISO did tend to creep up at times in lower light. For example, I went out on a cloudy overcast afternoon and at times my ISO did get about 12,000. For me personally, I don’t think twice shooting a Sony a1 at ISO 6400. Anything between 6400-10,000 I start to get a little concerned about the quality of the photo, especially if the subject is far away and will need cropping. Anything over 10,000 I usually try to avoid. However, I also went out on a sunny and partly cloudy day and had absolutely zero issue with shooting at f/8. So the concern is there, but if you’re shooting in enough light, it’s not that big of a deal.
Also, remember that this lens is trying to compete with a very specific category of lenses out there and they’re all in the same f/8 range or worse.
The only other thing isn’t necessarily something I didn’t like, but more something I wish was included – and that’s a built in Teleconverter. Other companies are doing this and I’d really like to see that feature make it’s way in to Sony lenses. But it’s more of a missing feature, than it is something I don’t like.
Q. Any concerns over f/8 not giving you enough light to shoot with, or background blur, or bokeh, as the fancy photographer measure-bater people like to call it?
A. This is a tough one. At first glance, I didn’t see a problem with f/8. And if I’m shooting in mostly bright light it’s not a problem at all. However, early in the morning I did notice that shooting at f/8, at the shutter speeds I shoot at, caused the ISO levels to climb higher than I’d care for. Backgrounds look fine as long as you have distance behind your subject though.
Q. Did you try a teleconverter on it?
A. I didn’t but it will take the Sony 1.4x and a 2.0x TCs just fine. I’d expect performance of a TC on the lens to be similar to what it is on the 200-600mm. They’re both G lenses so they should perform pretty close to the same.
Q. What about all the other stuff like buttons, dials, weather proofing and all that?
A. Pretty much the same as you’d expect and see on other lenses in this category. Nothing stood out to me as different. I really felt like I was just holding a slightly larger version of my 200-600mm, both in shooting and features of the lens.
Q. Can I shoot other things with this lens, besides wildlife?
A. Of course. The lens isn’t tuned for birds or animals. The lens won’t know what you’re shooting. You’d shoot this any time you want that focal length, so possible uses could be air shows, sports, etc… From a sports perspective I may worry about this lens indoors or at night, but I see no reason why it wouldn’t perform perfectly outdoors in decent weather.
Q. Are you ordering one and what lenses are in your wildlife kit once you get this?
A. I ended up having some extra time to spend with this lens after writing this. While my initial excitement was genuine, after spending more time with the lens the ISO levels of shooting at f/8 started becoming an issue for me.
I do love the idea of having 800mm instead of 600mm, but for now I’m sticking with my 200-600mm and I’ll pull out the 600mm f/4 with a teleconverter if I need more reach.
Final Thoughts
I hope that helps give you a quick intro to the new Sony 400-800mm lens. You’ll see a lot of “First Look” things out there which are great, but very few people actually shot the lens for a month in real life, so hopefully that experience helps give you an idea if it’s something you’d be interested in.
I’d love to know if you’ll be getting one, or if you have any questions. So feel free to leave a comment below. Enjoy!
I love teaching and photography... In that order. I feel that enjoying photography, and photo editing can get WAY too complicated. So my personal mission (and favorite thing to do), is to create education that simplifies the process of taking great photos, and how to edit them to get the results you’ve always wanted.
I’m just wondering what your thoughts on this lens are a year later? I have the 200-600 and I’m considering selling that in favor of the 400-800. Like you I went through a lot of my wildlife photos and found that very few were shot at less than 400, and most of those that were could’ve been shot at 400.
Hi Ray. After using the lens for a while, I decided to just keep my 200-600mm. No need to have both lenses and I felt like the 200-600mm served me well so I stuck with that. If I were starting from scratch, maybe I’d just get the 400-800mm. But I didn’t see a reason to have both. Thanks.
Does this mean you do not have 400-800?
Matt, Thank you for your insight. You helped me make up my mind to buy the 400-800 I’m going to sell my 300;
it’s a great lens but I don’t use it. I don’t know if I can part with the 200-600. It’s like that the loyal old work horse that has seen me through nine countries around the equator. I have a 600 prime but it is just too big to lug around unless I’m shooting locally. I recently assembled a book for myself that includes 145 species of tropical birds. 90% of the birds are in flight. If you’d like to peak at some of the selects go to my Flickr page at, https://www.flickr.com/photos/domvmoskve/albums/72177720313689159/
Best,
Andy House
Great review Matt. I’ve been down the rabbit hole trying to decide on my next long lens and your review has been a huge help. Cheers !
When finances allow, yes! I’ll be purchasing one. Most photos are in mountains – climbing, skiing, animals, landscapes. Obviously this lens provides incredible possibilities with some subjects, others, not at all.
Really enjoy the honest perspective especially when it comes to shooting with different platforms. I agree most are good these days and switching or carrying two different brands makes no sense.
The quality of these photos with the 400-800 speaks volumes and now reluctantly I feel like I need to sell my 200-600
Matt,
Quite a few respected (and perhaps trusted) Reviewers state very clearly that the Sony 400-800mm is not sharp at 800mm. This seems in direct contravention to how you are promoting this lens as a Sony Ambassador. I always enjoy your posts and videos etc but the extreme difference between what you state and most others is perhaps odd?
It is well known the 200-600mm suffered batch variation but to launch a new and highly desirable lens such as the 400-800mm with such issues is unacceptable. Do you have a reasonable explanation of the difference between your promotion here of this lens, what you say and most others?
Hi Ian. Asking me to explain my thoughts, is just as odd as asking those others to explain theirs. Our “explanation” is our video/post and the photos we share. So… rather than try to explain what some one else was thinking or why, I’ll simply let the photos here do the talking. I believe the 200-600mm and the 400-800mm are fantastic lenses, and I think the photos I share show it.
PS: I’ve looked at at least 5 other reviews from respected wildlife photographers and they all have great things to say about it. So I’m not sure where the “quite a few” and “most others” comments you wrote come from. At least the people whose opinion I respect, have great things to say about it.
100% Matt. In fact, I’ve research this lens HEAVILY before buying it and the entirety of reviewers, including seasoned wildlife professionals, indicate the lens is notably sharp at 800, in fact I’ve read it called “optimized” for sharpness at the long end.
Thanks Roger.
The deal breaker for me if f8 at 800mm.
I have not used this lens but I do not believe that it’s better than the 200-600 F6.3. At least not for me.
I shoot an A7RV able to shoot the crop factor at 900mm and 26mp. Push a button and I’m shooting 600mm at 61 MP.
Both focal lengths at F6.3-F7.1. – 2/3 more light and 2/3 less ISOnoise.
That doesn’t seem like much but at the end of the day it’s ISO3200 with the 400-800mm and less with the 200-600mm.
Less is more.
Just to let you know. You’re not shooting at 900mm. You’re shooting at 600mm and you’re letting the camera permanently and destructively crop for you, rather than cropping in Lightroom or PS. It’s not different in any way. I’m glad it works for you, but I just don’t want misinformation spread. A crop is a crop, no matter where it happens and it is not more focal length.
F8 at 800mm isnt bad at all, the fastest 800mm lens you can buy is f5.6 which is only 1 stop faster and that lens doesn’t exist for Sony. The Canon one is a lot heavier and about 18 grand more expensive. If you can afford one and want to carry it then that’s great.
I rented this lens. I usually shoot cityscape. Especially NYC Manhattan skyline photos. I took it for a spin, the other day. I usually shoot at f8 and I was not much satisfied by the results after I got the photos into my computer and photoshop. I thought it was because of the weather conditions. So, today, I was sitting in my car, just playing around with it. I was shooting random objects. I realized it is very soft, like out of focus at f8 at all focal lengths. I have to stop down to f11 or f16 to see sharper images. Is it the copy I got or is there any characteristic specific to this lens? I shoot with Sony A7 R IV
Hi. It’s not something I would be able to answer for you, but if you think something is wrong definitely contact Sony. I assume you’re on a tripod and all that so if the photos are soft compared to other lenses then I’d definitely look in to it. Good luck.
I just got the 400-800 and have had excellent results with very sharp photos. I use it mainly for birds and landscape and couldn’t be happier. I’m an amateur so maybe my expectations are lower, but they look pretty sharp to me.
I have the same Alpha 7RIV, and find the resolution has made me use faster shutter speeds & ISO’s. Even in good light.
Just my experience talking.
Excellent review. The 200-600 is great but I agree it does not have that extra reach . It sadly will not allow use of the Sony 1.4 or 2x converter whereas the 400-800 does although the apertures shrink appreciably so need to be used in very bright conditions. I will be acquiring one in due course as a great aid to wildlife photography as the good man has said .
I know people that put the TCs on the 200-600mm. Not sure why you say it will not allow use.
Probably because it’s not a Sony lens.
I use a 1.4 tc on my 200-600 frequently. Although it works well, this is also why I am interested in the 400-800 now.
Hi Matt ,
What shorter focal length ( shorter than 105m ) lenses do you have ?
Keep up the good work !
Hi. 24-105mm and a 90mm macro.
Drats, I contemplated ordering when I got the notification. I have a trip planned for late June and now I don’t know if the lens will arrive in time. Grrr.
Just picked up a used one from B & H. I shoot with an a1, so I’m excited to see how it performs this week, compared to my 200-600.
If you sell 200 – 600mm or 100 – 400m or 600mm f4. Kindly give me a price you offer. I’m a wedding Photographer who accidentally came into this field just earn money to buy lenses for fulfilling my dreams in Wildlife photography. Unfortunately running a business in this field becomes a big challenge, Hence I can’t think of buying lens for wildlife. and price of all the wildlife lens are not affordable. So If you sell it for lesser price. I can check my bank balance to begin my dreams to come true.
Hi Matt,
Will you be replacing the lens foot with one that is Arca-Swiss compatible, or just adding an Aca-Swiss plate, or neither (if you only hand-hold)? I haven’t seen a replacement foot advertised specifically for the 400-800 yet, have you? Not sure it would be the same as ones for the Sony 400 and 600 primes. If you know otherwise, do tell!
Hi Steve. I think I bought this one for my 200-600mm 5 years ago. It may have actually been put on a tripod 10 times in 5 years 🙂 But it was cheap and it does the trick if I need it, and since I’ll sell the 200-600mm I’ll just move it over if needed: https://amzn.to/4c6bFqK
Matt – I have seen some articles stating that image quality is substantially better with the 400-800 than with the 200-600. Did you find that to be true or is it negligible? Did IQ factor into your decision along with reach?
Hi Mark. I didn’t notice anything and image quality never factors in to a decision at this point in the game. Personally, I think at this point in 2025 with any decent lens… image quality is way better than any of us will ever need. The vast majority of my portfolio and every wildlife photo that I love was taken with the 200-600mm in the last 6 years… I don’t think anyone could say image quality is an issue there. To me, I think it’s something the measure-baters out there and the tech youtubers like to manufacture up. It’s 6 years newer, so my guess is it is a little better but definitely not that my 50+ eyes could ever see without pixel peeping. 🙂 Hope that helps!
Hello, nice review! Can you please tell me at what focal length the f6.3 changes to f8 going from 400 to 800mm?
I have just gotten into trying to shoot birds and wildlife. I bought the Sony A1 . I am interested in the new 400-800. Is there anywhere you could share your camera settings you use on your Sony A1 ,with your 200-600. I can’t find anyone with Sony in my area to share with . Due to my issues of returning from stroke issues im not very good at reading and then setting the camera,. I tried to watch videos but they go to fast for me to flip back and forth. Sorry for my long boring life story , but if you able to share with me, that would be awesome. I am looking for the menu setting pages so I can follow.
Thanks, Suzyqmh1@ gmail.com
Hi Susan. I don’t really have anything to share. My camera is pretty much stock and I’m not one for customizing it. Thanks.
I think most of us 200-600 owners would find we shoot a majority of images @600. I’ve programed my C1 button to APSC mode to get that extra reach, (willing to do to 21 megapixels to get a closer image). Did you shoot in APSC mode at all?
Hi Kevin. I did not shoot in APSC. It doesn’t give you extra “reach” – it crops the photo to appear that way. I personally don’t find a reason for APSC. I’d rather crop in post, then let the camera do it and be stuck with it. But it doesn’t change the quality and output of the lens in any way. Thanks.
I rented this lens. I usually shoot cityscape. Especially NYC Manhattan skyline photos. I took it for a spin, the other day. I usually shoot at f8 and I was not much satisfied by the results after I got the photos into my computer and photoshop. I thought it was because of the weather conditions. So, today, I was sitting in my car, just playing around with it. I was shooting random objects. I realized it is very soft, like out of focus at f8 at all focal lengths. I have to stop down to f11 or f16 to see sharper images. Is it the copy I got or is there any characteristic specific to this lens? I shoot with Sony A7 R IV
Ordering one now ! I also have the 300 f2.8 , selling my 200 600mm. 800mm is definitely a bonus , even at f8. In decent light and or snow ISO isn’t an issue below 3200 especially on the 48MP A1/ A1ii
Nice write-up. I have been hovering over upgrading my 200-600 and was super close to the 300mm with a 2x TC I have for low light. I actually spent the last couple of days with the 200-600 strapped to a fixed 300mm and it’s just not going to work as a length for me with the wildlife around here… (jumpy little scared birds)… I’m ordering the 400-800 and will kiss a fond farewell to my wonderful 200-600 …. my lens lineup is currently Sony GM 12-24, 24-70, and 70-200 II…. so that gives me a 1.4x and 2x on the 200 which sits me nicely up to the 400-800.. thanks again, the article helped..
Thanks for a clear review – – did you compare 400-800 with 200-600 with x1.4 TC? Would render the lenses similar in long reach and f-stop.
Great info. With this new lens, how would you design a kit for a Tanzania safari – given what I have (and hope to get), how would a 70-200, 300 and 400-800 work?
Hi Sharon. I’ve never been on one, so you’d want to ask your guide or someone else who you know has been before. I wouldn’t want to mislead you. Thanks.
Thanks. Last question. Do you think 400-800 is too long for Lake Clark and the bears? I think you always used your 200-600 there. This is probably a very dumb question. Nothing is too long!
I’m already locked into my long lens lineup with a 300 2.8, 400 2.8 and 600 4.0. They all work great with teleconverters too, especially the 300 2.8 (It SHINES!!).
Yes, I lack the versatility that both the 200-600, and now the 400-800, offer. But most of my wildlife and birding shooting is at lower light conditions, so I’ll sacrifice the versatility for the low light needs.
I also own the 100-400 and it will never leave my side, although it is primarily my landscape go-to.
But this new Sony 400-800 looks to be a sweet option!! I used to own the 200-600, but sold it because even at 6.3, it was still too slow for my needs. Let’s just say the trinity of big primes has spoiled me (awfully)!!
Enjoy the 400-600 when you get your copy…it will serve you well there in Central FL!!
Sorry, meant “enjoy your 400-800”
Thanks Carl. That’s interesting about the 200-600mm being slow. I have the 600 f/4 and while I can “feel” a VERY slight difference, it’s so negligible that I can never find a reason to reach for it over the 200-600mm. Anyway, sounds like you have a great lineup of lenses. Enjoy! 🙂
Greatly appreciate all the information Matt. Thank you. I do love my 200-600 for when I need reach. But you are correct, having the 800 in those situations works better and is most used. If I moved to the 800, I do believe that I would sell my 200-600. The only thing stopping me is that I just don’t do enough of bird photography. But it certainly would be fun to have that reach when we’re shooting Eagles out here in Idaho.
I get it Jeff. Listen, I’m the type of person that doesn’t think much about the gear or wish lists, etc… I take what I have, and I adapt to shoot with it and honestly don’t think much after that. Can’t say I’ve ever had the 200-600mm and thought “I wish I had a 400-800mm”. I was plenty happy with the 200-600mm and if you’re not shooting a lot of wildlife I’d see no reason to go through the hassle/cost to switch. That lens served me well for years and most of my favorite wildlife photos were taken with it, so I have no complaints about it. Enjoy! 🙂