AGeoJO wrote:
I am flattered and humbled at the same time, Shirley...
Thank you, Shalu! The baffle of my extension tube is in the way for being able to mount it between the TCs. During the Canon days back then and using particular TCs, we mounted the 2X right after the lens and the 1.4X at the body. Is that still the same or does the position of the TCs play a role in operation and/or optical performance? Thanks!
___________________________________________
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for posting your images taken with this lens. Please post some more as you see fit.
Up to this point, I don't have any different images to show other than burrowing owls and peregrine falcons.... Here are a few from yesterday.
The first image was taken with the A9 in anticipation of some flying action. The other two were taken with the A7r III for more details and better noise rendition. It was still early in the morning and the lighting was fairly low. I used a 1.4X TC for the last image, my first try with that actually.
FYI, peregrine falcons prey of other, smaller birds and they typically attack them in flight. These falcons are fast and very agile flyers. Here the parents brought the prey since the chicks still have to learn to hunt. They should master that before too long, I would say. ...Show more →
Great shots Joshua. Did you feel the 1.4TC brought in more detail when comparing 600 to 840 on those last two shots? Always so hard to tell when just displayed on the web. May be a little hard to compare as the ISO ended up higher in the 600mm shot. Light level must have changed?
Very nice and interesting to see the image threads from the new Sony birding lenses!
One thing though: I read that the 200-600 is supposed to perform (almost) as well as the 600GM IQ wise. But nice though the 200-600 may look, especially for the money, the 600GM is entirely on a different level from what I have seen in these threads so far. The 200-600 looks nice, but the 600GM looks spectacular.
ChrisMak wrote:
Very nice and interesting to see the image threads from the new Sony birding lenses!
One thing though: I read that the 200-600 is supposed to perform (almost) as well as the 600GM IQ wise. But nice though the 200-600 may look, especially for the money, the 600GM is entirely on a different level from what I have seen in these threads so far. The 200-600 looks nice, but the 600GM looks spectacular.
Chris
I sure hope it is at some sort of better level. But it is always hard to compare based off of random images from different people, shot in different light, with unknown levels of cropping and unknown processing skills.
I think the only good data so far is Joshua's impressions and images of the owls and falcons as he at least is a constant and shooting both lenses at the same locations, subjects etc.
AGeoJO wrote:
Thank you, Shalu! The baffle of my extension tube is in the way for being able to mount it between the TCs. During the Canon days back then and using particular TCs, we mounted the 2X right after the lens and the 1.4X at the body. Is that still the same or does the position of the TCs play a role in operation and/or optical performance? Thanks!
Joshua, do you have the Kenko extension tubes? Other brands may not have large enough hole in the middle for the TCs.
And with Kenko 16mm tube, you need to cut away the slight protrusion of the black plastic to make it flush with the metal parts, then they will fit. Also you need to have the 1.4X TC next to the camera, and 2X TC next to the lens. If the order is reversed, the maximum focus distance is cut in half. Yes, with Canon 2X II, you can mount another TC with front protrusion behind it, but not with Canon 2X III. And Kenko TCs can go to the back of any other TC since it does not protrude in the front. But these options are not available for Sony e-mount lenses.
arbitrage wrote:
Great shots Joshua. Did you feel the 1.4TC brought in more detail when comparing 600 to 840 on those last two shots? Always so hard to tell when just displayed on the web. May be a little hard to compare as the ISO ended up higher in the 600mm shot. Light level must have changed?
From my brief, very brief actually, the details of images captured using the 1.4 X TC seems to be “better” to me. I didn’t use the term “sharper” here and actually, I should have described it as “I like them better”. Mostly, it has to do with the noise level and the crop will put emphasis on the noise and yes, the light level did change between those 2 shots. Everything being equal I would prefer adding a TC for more optical reach during the shoot rather than digital cropping in PP.
Just a fair warning to all potential buyer, yes, this lens is excellent and samples are also spectacular BUT don’t expect that you will get the same result. We all shot at different location, weather, distance, level of processing (very critical).
I was almost starting to believe the 600GM F4 to be a superfluous lens due to the 200-600 hmmm, but looking at the images you link (I saw them already) on a quality Eizo screen, the 600GM images jump at me at first look, WOW, whereas the 200-600 images at first look make me go "very nice!" There is a substantial difference to my eyes in all kinds of aspects, and good to know the exotic super tele's keep their right of existence, and hopefully a 600DO or PF f4 in the future. But the 200-600 no doubt is some achievement by Sony. I wonder how it would compare to the Sigma 150-600, also f6.3 at "600" mm (not really 600 of course)
arbitrage wrote:
I sure hope it is at some sort of better level. But it is always hard to compare based off of random images from different people, shot in different light, with unknown levels of cropping and unknown processing skills.
I think the only good data so far is Joshua's impressions and images of the owls and falcons as he at least is a constant and shooting both lenses at the same locations, subjects etc.
ChrisMak wrote:
I was almost starting to believe the 600GM F4 to be a superfluous lens due to the 200-600 hmmm, but looking at the images you link (I saw them already) on a quality Eizo screen, the 600GM images jump at me at first look, WOW, whereas the 200-600 images at first look make me go "very nice!" There is a substantial difference to my eyes in all kinds of aspects, and good to know the exotic super tele's keep their right of existence, and hopefully a 600DO or PF f4 in the future. But the 200-600 no doubt is some achievement by Sony. I wonder how it would compare to the Sigma 150-600, also f6.3 at "600" mm (not really 600 of course)
Went to the Zoo yesterday with my 600 GM a7rIII on a Gitzo Monopod. It it light I walked around with the legs extended for 45 min and it was no big deal. I might get a Lens Coat wrap to cushion the upper 14" of the monopod but I would not need to.
The lens is super sharp I cannot wait to get my a7rIV now.
birdied wrote:
Marvelous work Joshua and all. Really remarkable.
Birdie
Birdie, thank you very much!
ChrisMak wrote:
Very nice and interesting to see the image threads from the new Sony birding lenses!
One thing though: I read that the 200-600 is supposed to perform (almost) as well as the 600GM IQ wise. But nice though the 200-600 may look, especially for the money, the 600GM is entirely on a different level from what I have seen in these threads so far. The 200-600 looks nice, but the 600GM looks spectacular.
Chris
Chris, to just say it in a few words here. Yes, there is a difference but it is small and not always readily visible. The difference shows up more if viewed at larger scale on your screen monitor but significantly less so as web-sized images.
@shalu and @trstahly, you guys make this lens sing! Please post more images.
___________________________________________
So far, I have used this lens at two birding places. While the falcons are very active now and they are photogenic but the action takes place at shorter distances, making the 600mm too long. The falcons are fun to watch, making me gravitate more to them. I will go out there tomorrow again. After that, I will switch to more and other birding activities locally.
I am including two more burrowing owl images here. The father owl on the right just caught a bug and he is feeding a youngster that cannot quite fly yet. These owls seems to really love these June bugs and it shows. They close their eyes while getting and devouring them. Two years ago, I got a sequence of them playing with their prey; kissing, pulling the wings, etc. for good 20+ seconds and at 10 FPS, I got more than 200 images in a jiffy.
How are you achieving this kind of detail with a 2x TC at 3200 ISO? Any presets or post production tips to help with the 2x converter I will not even use mine I have such poor results with it but would love to know who to improve my success with it.
I didn't have much success using either the 1.4X or 2.0X TC with the 100-400mm GM in low light using high ISO. With the 600mm GM I found that my copy of the 2X TC is actually sharper than the 1.4X TC. Maybe I need to have my 1.4X TC look at. The raw image already showed lots of detail so there wasn't much to do in Lightroom besides bringing up the exposure and shadows a bit, a bit of contrast, clarity and vibrance. Very minimal saturation applied. I think the key is balancing the sharpening with the noise reduction. At such a long focal length when the light gets low I try to keep the shutter speed at a reasonably level, not too low, to minimize effect of shake and vibration. A good solid tripod always helps!
Footlink wrote:
I didn't have much success using either the 1.4X or 2.0X TC with the 100-400mm GM in low light using high ISO. With the 600mm GM I found that my copy of the 2X TC is actually sharper than the 1.4X TC. Maybe I need to have my 1.4X TC look at. The raw image already showed lots of detail so there wasn't much to do in Lightroom besides bringing up the exposure and shadows a bit, a bit of contrast, clarity and vibrance. Very minimal saturation applied. I think the key is balancing the sharpening with the noise reduction. At such a long focal length when the light gets low I try to keep the shutter speed at a reasonably level, not too low, to minimize effect of shake and vibration. A good solid tripod always helps!...Show more →
In my experience, not using the GM 600mm so far but with the GM 100-400mm lens, the image degradation of the performance of the main lens using 1.4X TC is barely, if any perceptible. The degradation is definitely more perceptible using the 2X TC but still great. You may want to get Sony to check your 1.4X TC.
. Here are a few from yesterday.
