OM and Sony wildlife zooms – lens handling

I have recently posted several articles on the relative performance of OM and Sony wildlife zooms, covering focus accuracy, resolution, and dynamic range, based on actual test data. One thing that is difficult to convey is the experience of using these lenses in the field. This post uses data and dimensions to try to give a better idea of handling.

If you would rather head straight to a concise summary, the TL;DR is at the foot of the page — or jump directly to the FAQ.

How much do these wildlife zooms actually weigh?

These are the published weights of the four lenses tested. The OM Little White (LW) is the only lens for which the lens foot can be completely removed. The LW weights given are with and without the foot.

Why does headline weight not tell the whole story?

The headline weight of the lens is measured without hoods or lens caps, but with the lens foot (unless it comes off). Here are the above lenses, with the lens and lens hood dimensions and weights included also.

There are four factors affecting how heavy a lens feels when holding it for extended periods.

What is the relationship between weight and holding time?

Imagine plotting weight vs the time you can hold that weight. For 100g you could hold it almost indefinitely. 1kg, probably 3–5 minutes. 5kg, probably 30 seconds. So increasing weight has a multiplier effect. A doubling of the weight affects handling far more than the arithmetical weight difference would suggest.

How does lens length affect the experience?

All these lenses are well balanced and have internal zoom, but compared to the LW, the 400-800 adds 1kg extra weight on a lens that is 10cm longer, so the apparent effect of this is large, and again, more than the arithmetic weight difference would suggest.

What about rotational inertia?

This is how easy or difficult it is to swing the camera and lens around, to track a bird in flight, for example. A reasonable proxy for this is the weight × length of the lens (without hood), which I have indexed here to a number between 1 and 10. There is a factor of three between the 400-800 and the LW, and that expresses reasonably well the actual ease of swinging the lens.

How much difference does the lens hood make?

Long telephoto zooms always have oversized hoods to my mind, and the effect of the hood can be significant. It explains some of the differences between the stated weight of the lens and the experience of holding it in your hand for extended periods. The BW lens hood is truly enormous, and despite being made of carbon fibre, it weighs around 180g. The same is true for the 400-800. These giant hoods extend off the edge of already very long lenses, so the lever effect is substantial.

That’s why the 400-800 is so hard to handle. Take a 2.5kg tube that is 35cm long, and then hang a 150g weight right at the very end. The hood weight is multiplied by the lens lever, and makes an already heavy lump even heavier. I have attempted to quantify this with the last row, which is the hood weight × lens length, normalised to a number between 1 and 10. The impact of the BW and 400-800 hoods is again 3× that of the LW hood.

How useful is focus preset in the field?

Both the BW and LW have an instant focus preset function available via a switch and lens buttons. This is extraordinarily useful, particularly for Pro Capture sessions. For the Resplendent Quetzal shots in Costa Rica in particular, the nest was in a tree trunk, and you could be waiting hours for the bird to arrive or depart. Without a preset, the camera would focus on the area behind the tree. Then, when the bird shot out, focus lock was required, wasting precious frames and sometimes the whole sequence. To get around this, I set up focus lock on the tree trunk with the LW — all you do is set focus, move the focus lock switch and press a lens button.

With this done, I could move the camera off the tree, and as soon as there were signs of movement, instantly have the system in focus. A gamechanger. High-end Sony telephoto lenses like the 400mm GM or 600mm GM have this feature. Neither the 200-600 nor the 400-800 has it, however.

Does macro capability matter for wildlife photographers?

The LW coupled with the MC20 is a full macro lens with an FFE magnification of 2:1. More importantly, it has a minimum focus distance of only 78cm. This makes it perfect for shooting insects, frogs and other reptiles, which very frequently are the night complement to a day’s wildlife shooting. At 2.5 or 3.5m away, as with the Sony lenses, you cannot easily see the object, and this, plus the lens weight and lower magnification, makes them impractical for nighttime macro applications.

What does all this mean in the field?

In the field, the handling difference between the LW and the other lenses is huge and is difficult to convey in words. Hopefully, the numbers above do it better. You would take a hit on lens quality to get this freedom and ease of movement. The fact that you take no hit at all compared to the BW and the 200-600 is quite amazing to me.

TL;DR

• The OM 50-200mm f2.8 (Little White) at 1.2kg without its removable foot is less than half the weight of the Sony 400-800mm at 2.5kg — and weight differences at this scale have a multiplier effect on handheld endurance that the raw numbers understate.
• The rotational inertia index (weight × length) for the Sony 400-800mm is 3.2× higher than for the Little White — meaning it is dramatically harder to swing and track birds in flight.
• The hood lever index tells a similar story: the oversized hoods on the Big White and the 400-800mm create significant additional leverage that amplifies the effort of holding the lens steady.
• Neither Sony zoom has a focus preset function — a feature the OM pro zooms use to lock focus on a perch and instantly acquire the bird the moment it moves.
• The Little White with MC20 has a minimum focus distance of just 78cm, giving 2:1 FFE macro capability. The Sony 400-800mm’s minimum distance of 350cm makes it impractical for close subjects. The handling advantages are substantial — and the image quality penalty is zero.

Back to the article.

Frequently asked questions

Why does the Sony 400-800mm feel so much heavier than its published weight suggests?

Published weights are measured without hoods or caps. Once you add a 155g hood on the end of a 346mm lens, the lever effect makes the system feel substantially heavier than the number alone implies. The rotational inertia — the effort required to swing and track a bird in flight — is 3.2× greater for the 400-800mm than for the Little White, which is a better guide to the real-world handling difference than any single weight figure.

What is the focus preset function and why does it matter?

Focus preset lets you lock focus on a specific distance — a nest hole, a perch, a known landing spot — and return to that distance instantly by pressing a lens button, without taking your eye from the viewfinder. On the OM pro zooms this is built into the lens hardware. Neither the Sony 200-600 nor the 400-800 has it, which is a meaningful disadvantage for any situation where you know where a bird is going to appear.

Can the Sony wildlife zooms be used for macro photography?

Not practically. The Sony 200-600 has a minimum focus distance of 2.5m and the 400-800 of 3.5m — at those distances, small subjects like insects or frogs are too small in the frame and the working distance is impractical in the field, particularly at night. The Little White with MC20 focuses to 78cm and delivers 2:1 FFE magnification, making it a genuine dual-purpose wildlife and macro lens.

Is the Sony 400-800mm too heavy to use handheld?

For most people, for extended periods, yes. At 2.5kg before adding a body and hood, and with a rotational inertia index nearly 3× that of the Little White, it is effectively a tripod lens for serious bird-in-flight work. That is not a criticism of its optical performance — which is excellent — but a practical limitation that significantly constrains how and where it can be used.

Does the removable foot on the Little White make a significant practical difference?

Yes, more than the 200g weight saving alone suggests. Removing the foot lowers the centre of gravity slightly, and — more importantly — eliminates a protruding element that catches on straps and bags. It is the only lens in this group where the foot comes off completely, and it is a detail that reflects the OM system’s thoughtful approach to handheld wildlife use.

Back to the article.