Apology for the double post (also in the REVIEW: Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens thread).
For those who owned 100400GM & 428GM, have you compared the sharpness of the image both using a9+2x teleconverter combo?
I haven't found anything online that compare the sharpness b/w the 2 lens with a9+2x combo, it would be much appreciated if some1 would post Raw files of 100400GM+2x @ f11 vs 428GM+2x @ f5.6, f8, f11
Unfortunately, there isn't any public events held or lens available in stock for demonstration purposes for the 428GM here in Melbourne, Australia.
Competitive pricing on 428GM has piques my interest in making the purchase, despite me wanting a 600 f4. If sharpness is on-par vs 100400GM with a9+2x combo then I wont be rushing into making the purchase even @ a competitive price.
In short the 400GM is significantly better than 100-400GM with the 2x and is capable of making very sharp photos with some sharpening but it is still not quite as sharp as it is with bare lens or with the 1.4x. If the 600GM is coming (which I expect, but it probably doesn't make sense for Sony to launch it before they can cover the demand for the 400), then I am sure 600 + 1.4x will be better than 400 + 2x.
But which focal lengths are most useful for you? I have shoot bears, wolverines and eagles from hides in Finland now and every place I have been so far a 400 2.8 is better than a 600 simply because the 600 will be too long much of the time. So I don't completely agree with those who say 400mm is "sport" focal length and 600mm is for wildlife. For birds while not shooting from a hide however, a 600 mm sounds like a better bet.
randomguy wrote:
But which focal lengths are most useful for you? I have shoot bears, wolverines and eagles from hides in Finland now and every place I have been so far a 400 2.8 is better than a 600 simply because the 600 will be too long much of the time. So I don't completely agree with those who say 400mm is "sport" focal length and 600mm is for wildlife. For birds while not shooting from a hide however, a 600 mm sounds like a better bet.
800mm is enough for me for now, but 100% I would definitely want more reach for some small perching birds, through my 1yr experience, I've learn to give up attempting certain shots because i know it will turn out unusable due to crop and in certain places that I regularly visit on weekend I know the birds are very unapproachable despite many attempt to creep up to try and get a better shot, so I guess I prefer longer focal length than 800mm.
Since is a weekend/holiday hobby for me, I dont plan I getting a bird hide or camp all day at a waterhole or setup a feeding ground waiting for birds to perch on a branch I want in my composition.
Originally I made up my mind to wait for a 600 prime since I am also doing Deep Space Object (DSO) photography (current lens I use is a cheap Tamron 150-600 even though I own 100400GM, and teleconverters ), I rather have more reach than larger aperture (never had any regret not having larger aperture lens). Moreover teleconverter would worsen any chromatic abbreviation inherit from the lens itself.
It is only recently a very competitive pricing was offer whilst I was picking up accessories in store during a sales event, which I got me thinking again, and I dont plan to try and owned 2 telephoto primes.
Thanx for the info&links provided, I will pass on the offer given
In short the 400GM is significantly better than 100-400GM with the 2x and is capable of making very sharp photos with some sharpening but it is still not quite as sharp as it is with bare lens or with the 1.4x.
Sorry I not entirely convinced that 400GM+2x is sharper than 100400GM+2x, see https://www.flickr.com/photos/147693780@N02/31642831497/in/dateposted-public/
and others in my photostream. Please dont view this statement as a criticism , since it is not 100% comparable, which is why I could not find any side by side comparison b/w the 2 lens @ 800mm. I do suspect 400GM will be sharper than @f5.6 wide open if stop down, I seen this in my 70200GM+1.4x setup, soft@f4, noticeably [email protected] in a control test.
iamso78 wrote:
Sorry I not entirely convinced that 400GM+2x is sharper than 100400GM+2x, see https://www.flickr.com/photos/147693780@N02/31642831497/in/dateposted-public/
and others in my photostream. Please dont view this statement as a criticism , since it is not 100% comparable, which is why I could not find any side by side comparison b/w the 2 lens @ 800mm. I do suspect 400GM will be sharper than @f5.6 wide open if stop down, I seen this in my 70200GM+1.4x setup, soft@f4, noticeably [email protected] in a control test.
My images are posted in full size, that one I can't check in more than 2k pix wide.
randomguy wrote:
My images are posted in full size, that one I can't check in more than 2k pix wide.
I apologise if I did not enable full-sized downable photos, I based my assessment on your full sized photo downloaded and then compared with in Capture One view @ 100% for all of them. I picked stationary targets coz I know for a fact 400GM+2x will AF better and more accurately in BIF than 100400GM as well as some of the duck BIF photos are not critical sharp in my opinion. Like I said in my previous post not 100% comparable, regardless here a screenshot of it on my 5K Apple display.
Last thing I want is make this thread into an endless debate of which is sharper based on xxx factors, hence why I kindly asked in my initial post for a control test f11 vs f5.6, f8, f11 on a flat stationary target.
iamso78 wrote:
800mm is enough for me for now, but 100% I would definitely want more reach for some small perching birds, through my 1yr experience, I've learn to give up attempting certain shots because i know it will turn out unusable due to crop and in certain places that I regularly visit on weekend I know the birds are very unapproachable despite many attempt to creep up to try and get a better shot, so I guess I prefer longer focal length than 800mm.
Since is a weekend/holiday hobby for me, I dont plan I getting a bird hide or camp all day at a waterhole or setup a feeding ground waiting for birds to perch on a branch I want in my composition.
Originally I made up my mind to wait for a 600 prime since I am also doing Deep Space Object (DSO) photography (current lens I use is a cheap Tamron 150-600 even though I own 100400GM, and teleconverters ), I rather have more reach than larger aperture (never had any regret not having larger aperture lens). Moreover teleconverter would worsen any chromatic abbreviation inherit from the lens itself.
It is only recently a very competitive pricing was offer whilst I was picking up accessories in store during a sales event, which I got me thinking again, and I dont plan to try and owned 2 telephoto primes.
Thanx for the info&links provided, I will pass on the offer given
Very nice images I just got mine the other day and your images with the 2x are exciting I had heard good things and have seen some nice images but this makes me a believer.
With the upcoming firmware it is even more exciting.
Now I will be chomping at the bit for the next A9 II and 60MP or larger sensor in the A7rIV to crop farther and perhaps utilize the 1.4x ipo of the 2x.
What is your conclusion on the IQ or degration between the 1.4x and 2x?
trstahly wrote:
Very nice images I just got mine the other day and your images with the 2x are exciting I had heard good things and have seen some nice images but this makes me a believer.
With the upcoming firmware it is even more exciting.
Now I will be chomping at the bit for the next A9 II and 60MP or larger sensor in the A7rIV to crop farther and perhaps utilize the 1.4x ipo of the 2x.
What is your conclusion on the IQ or degration between the 1.4x and 2x?
Thanks
a9+100400GM+1.4x as good as naked in AF and sharpness, you find other members with similar assessment (sony a9 image thread). 2x for small birds/erratic movement BIF eg welcome swallow, burst hit-rate (culling for critical sharp images) isnt as high vs 1.4x/naked even though the green AF boxes on screen/EVF is tracking. For big birds BIF eg cormorant/ibis hit-rate is good as 1.4x/naked. Moreover, 2x hunts more close to minimal focus distance, and there is sharpness degradation, but Capture One 12 sharpness 1 preset will fix that. Any further question just PM, since is getting unrelated to this thread.
, since it is not 100% comparable, which is why I could not find any side by side comparison b/w the 2 lens @ 800mm. I do suspect 400GM will be sharper than @f5.6 wide open if stop down, I seen this in my 70200GM+1.4x setup, soft@f4, noticeably 
