In my experience I've found that TCs have a negative effect on contrast...high key (bright) areas particularly on sunny days are much more likely to lose any tones in those same areas w/o the TC....am thinking of tops of beaks...parts of legs....light-colored wing patches etc.
This lens caught me right away, with size, weight, optical quality. I owned the Sony 400 GM for a while and loved the results. But I needed to hand hold for a lot of my shooting for hours and it was just too much on a moving boat. This is not for all of my shoots but when it is needed I will love the weight. So I sold the lens and now use the 200-600 G which is fantastic for its cost. Using the 200-600 I do find 300 to 400 range works well for me.
I have preordered with my local store and am at the top of the list. So I will be happy to post my results when it comes, who knows when that will be. I own the 1.4x but not the 2x, which would come for this lens.
Mark and Patrick both know what they are talking about so that pushed me to get the first round, since the second round could have a wait. Time will tell. Exciting times in the photo and video world.
I was never happy with the 2.0x or the 1.4x either on my 400 2.8GM. There's just too much of a downgrade in image quality and AF speed for me. I've got one and sold one and can't remember the last time I mounted one on the 400. I'm sure some will be happy with the 300 and a convertor, but knowing how good the lenses are without makes it no go. Sure, you can get some really nice images with them and post them online, but I don't think they represent the true story of how good or not they are.
It's not often the 300's MFD would have been a problem for me; a ptarmigan chick peeping at my feet, a Gyrfalcon that hopped closer than 6', a Chestnut-sided Warbler at Magee Marsh. The warbler was a total miss but I was able to back up enough for the Gyrfalcon and ptarmigan photos. I like the perspective of a 300mm lens but for that much money the IQ when using a TC will have to be exemplary.
By itself the 100-400 GM's image quality leaves very little to be desired but with the 1.4x TC it doesn't do anything for me. The 300's DMF switch is something I wish the 100-400 had.
duncang wrote:
Would you mind posting a link to some RAW files taken with the 600 + 2xTC. I would be interested in seeing how that holds up. With the 1.4TC the 600 seems excellent - not sure I could tell the difference even on a 5K display.
The images Mark Galer posted with the 300 and 2xTC didn't look particularly good - but hard to tell anything without the RAW files.
My 600 GM + 2X produces sharp results in my hands, of course if you do an MTF measurement in the lab you will see a difference compared to the bare lens for sure but in the field, the sharpness is not a limiting factor in my experience and I am quite happy with the end results.
Here are some example with 100% unsharpened crop from RAW as it appears in capture one pro. These are typical examples, I didn't have time to go through and find the "sharpest" examples since I literally have thousands of frames at 1200mm. I am sure I have had shots that came out sharper than these but for me these are acceptable. I included flight shots so you can get an idea about the AF.
I find the AF to be still excellent even with the 2X, unlike the old DSLR's the mirrorless AF is not so much dependent on the maximum aperture of the lens, so I have not really noticed a large degradation like the old DSLRs. Of course in very low light there is a hit but generally speaking in my hands I am not limited by the AF in most conditions. I can't say the AF tracking with the 2x is any worse than without it.
Please note making sharp shots at 1200mm is much much harder than 600mm because of the various effects such atmospheric dispersion. Heat shimmers, small camera movement etc. all are magnified four times at 1200mm compared to 600mm. I use my lenses handhold, handholding at longer FL also needs more care. I think some of the complaints about the 600 + 2X might be fixed with better technique/better conditions.
Overall the field conditions must be ideal for shooting at such distances, but often it is not ideal. In fact in some locations it is just not possible to use 1200mm because of the heat shimmers that are present all day long. There are some locations inland where I would never use my 2X. It will be very disappointing.
overall I find the 2X (1200mm) a valuable tool in my toolkit and one of the reasons I liked the Sony system to being with.
Naturally with 300mm + 2X one would be shooting at closer range so some of these effects will be less dominant and therefore overall percentage of sharp images will be higher.
I hope that per pixel 300 + 2X will be equal or better than these. I ordered the lens already and will test it out next year.
In general, I don't think there has been a consensus on TC use on the big primes. Previously people have stated that the 1.4x is perfectly fine on the 600GM and 400GM, but I have read alternative takes lately. As someone considering the 400GM or 600GM, it would be nice to have a definitive answer, but I don't think that's possible for a number of reasons. For example, AF performance may be just fine for larger birds in flight, but maybe not for a swallow? IQ may be fine for sharing on social media, but maybe not for contests or prints? Who knows...
berimbolo wrote:
In general, I don't think there has been a consensus on TC use on the big primes. Previously people have stated that the 1.4x is perfectly fine on the 600GM and 400GM, but I have read alternative takes lately. As someone considering the 400GM or 600GM, it would be nice to have a definitive answer, but I don't think that's possible for a number of reasons. For example, AF performance may be just fine for larger birds in flight, but maybe not for a swallow? IQ may be fine for sharing on social media, but maybe not for contests or prints? Who knows......Show more →
I don't think there is a lot of variation in the gear/optics or if it depends on the type of the bird, but there is great deal of variation in the operator behind the rig and the field conditions. Not claiming this is always the case but from the feedback from my clients and assessing their results, 99 out of 100 the sharpness loss at 1200mm is from poor conditions. With a lot of experience, one can immediately tell when heat shimmers are present, but first time shooting a long lens, the user may have no idea and blame it on the lens or TC.
to illustrate this point take look at the examples below. Images of the same bird from the same location at 1200mm, the bird was circling so miraculously I happened to get the same shot from two passes, one is soft but the other one is much better.
So what exactly happened? the answer is a breeze, this was a warm day and the earlier shot had shimmers but the breeze cleaned it up making a window to make acceptable images. Had it been a cooler day or a windy day I am confident the images would have been sharper than both of these
and swallow at 1200mm is not a problem, it takes years of practice to be able to find and track a swallow at 1200mm in the finder but it is possible
Feedback from Internet forums is a good starting point, I encourage you to purchase or rent the gear and use it for several months to form a better opinion. If you haven't shot with long lenses before, I recommend going on a workshop that is carefully chosen with the new gear so that you remove the other factors from the equation and see what the optics/gear can really do.
all of the factors mentioned here, some being out of our control, make shooting at 1200mm quite frustrating at times and reason not to like this combo, but when using in optimal conditions / technique I don't think anyone will be disappointed with the results. It’s a specialized tool, not a general purpose every day tool.
berimbolo wrote:
In general, I don't think there has been a consensus on TC use on the big primes. Previously people have stated that the 1.4x is perfectly fine on the 600GM and 400GM, but I have read alternative takes lately. As someone considering the 400GM or 600GM, it would be nice to have a definitive answer, but I don't think that's possible for a number of reasons. For example, AF performance may be just fine for larger birds in flight, but maybe not for a swallow? IQ may be fine for sharing on social media, but maybe not for contests or prints? Who knows......Show more →
I use the 1.4x TC with the 600 GM as needed and under good field conditions I'm very happy with the results. I see a slight degradation in image detail but when the lens is as superb as the 600 GM the results with this combination are more than acceptable. I'm not much into BIF but I find the AF to be as quick and accurate as with the lens alone.
For each of these photos I had to check the metadata to be sure I had used the TC. The stock agencies I work with have no problem with the image quality and have sold some of them.
speedmaster20d wrote:
My 600 GM + 2X produces sharp results in my hands, of course if you do an MTF measurement in the lab you will see a difference compared to the bare lens for sure but in the field, the sharpness is not a limiting factor in my experience and I am quite happy with the end results.
Here are some example with 100% unsharpened crop from RAW as it appears in capture one pro. These are typical examples, I didn't have time to go through and find the "sharpest" examples since I literally have thousands of frames at 1200mm. I am sure I have had shots that came out sharper than these but for me these are acceptable. I included flight shots so you can get an idea about the AF.
I find the AF to be still excellent even with the 2X, unlike the old DSLR's the mirrorless AF is not so much dependent on the maximum aperture of the lens, so I have not really noticed a large degradation like the old DSLRs. Of course in very low light there is a hit but generally speaking in my hands I am not limited by the AF in most conditions. I can't say the AF tracking with the 2x is any worse than without it.
Please note making sharp shots at 1200mm is much much harder than 600mm because of the various effects such atmospheric dispersion. Heat shimmers, small camera movement etc. all are magnified four times at 1200mm compared to 600mm. I use my lenses handhold, handholding at longer FL also needs more care. I think some of the complaints about the 600 + 2X might be fixed with better technique/better conditions.
Overall the field conditions must be ideal for shooting at such distances, but often it is not ideal. In fact in some locations it is just not possible to use 1200mm because of the heat shimmers that are present all day long. There are some locations inland where I would never use my 2X. It will be very disappointing.
overall I find the 2X (1200mm) a valuable tool in my toolkit and one of the reasons I liked the Sony system to being with.
Naturally with 300mm + 2X one would be shooting at closer range so some of these effects will be less dominant and therefore overall percentage of sharp images will be higher.
I hope that per pixel 300 + 2X will be equal or better than these. I ordered the lens already and will test it out next year.
@speedmaster20d , I’m really quite impressed that these images (and the swallow in the subsequent post) were all taken at 1200mm. And it’s also encouraging to hear that you don’t perceive the AF tracking to be noticeably (if that’s a reasonable word to use) worse.
My interest in this is that, having finally dragged myself off the fence and decided to upgrade my (original) A9 to an A1 (which I will pick up in London on Monday), I am keen to know how the 300/2.8 will perform with the 2x TC. Initially, I will spend time practicing and getting to know the A1 with my existing 200-600 but, at some point next year, I will likely buy a prime, to use for BIF. Although I appreciate that there is no real substitute for the 600/4, I am attracted to the 300/2.8 + 2x TC for hiking in the Scottish Highlands — but only if it is materially better than the 200-600 (without TC) at 600mm.
So I will be very interested to know how you find the 300 + 2x when you receive it. It seems quite plausible to me that the impact of the TC on sharpness and AF should be no worse (and may actually be less) than with the 600/4 — and it is clearly far from unacceptable with the 600. For an equivalent number of pixels on the sensor, I am hoping that it will actually be better, and a worthwhile improvement over the 200-600.
Meanwhile, if I may ask one question (more out of curiosity than anything else):
Do you happen to recall roughly how far away the duck in the final pair of images was? Given that there appears to be sufficient DoF to cover both the head and the wing, I presume that it must have been at least, say, 40-50m out (in which case I guess the first, uncropped(?) image might just, conceivably, be the whole frame — but with rather good panning!).
Thanks …. Andrew
Edit to add: @telyt ‘s images also look more than satisfactory to me, too.
shadow9d9 wrote:
I honestly would never buy such an expensive lens and then downgrade the visuals with a 2x TC. That is just me though.
I see the 300/2.8 + 2x TC as a far more practical 600mm lens (vs. the 600 GM) for travel where space and weight allowances are limited, and the initial reports suggest very little IQ degradation. The cost of the 300 GM + 2x TC is about half that of the 600 GM.
shadow9d9 wrote:
I honestly would never buy such an expensive lens and then downgrade the visuals with a 2x TC. That is just me though.
The relevant question is, how much of a downgrade is the addition of one of Sony's TC's for this lens other than a downgrade in max aperture, and the important things are AF, resolution, contrast and CA.
I take it as a given that the 2xTC will show degradation on all these points, but the 1.4TC may well show only very minor degradation, so you get a 420mm f4 with minimal degradation as part of the package, and Sony has no Z400mm f4.5, so albeit an expensive option, it is the first option to get to 420mm f4 at this weight and size.
I would have preferred a Sony 400mm f4GM with this design approach, but it is not likely at all that Sony will ever make one, since it will not be sufficiently professional grade for them. I assume they design their GM lenses for the pros, and non-professional shooters that buy their A1's and GM lenses are probably merely a bonus for them, but certainly not a priority.
So the 300GM is the only option in GM territory to get you to 420/4 and 600/5.6 at all, but the low weight imakes it a real tempter.
A 200-600mm f6.3 version II in GM outfit would also be great, but bigger and heavier, and is completely unlikely to ever see the light of day.
Not sure about this. I know from at least three other owners of the FE 400/2.8 who were really disappointed with the performance of the 2x TC. Maybe there is or was an issue with this particular combo.
From my experience with the 2x converter on the 70-200 GM II, 200-600 G, and 100-400 GM, sharpness and contrast at close range (up to 10m) are very good but drop off considerably the longer the distance. And Galer's 2x shots seem to be all at closer range. When comparing 140% (with t1.4x TC) to 200% enlargements against the 2x TC with the mentioned zooms, the latter will loose nearly always on distant targets, in addition to the light loss penalty.
So I would be interested to learn how the 300/2.8 & 2x TC combo performs in the distance.
freaklikeme wrote:
Does it really come as a surprise the 2x does well with the 300/2.8? It's excellent with the 400/2.8, and those two focal lengths tend to be the sweet spot for 2xs, historically speaking. In my experience, it's with the zooms where the 2x gets dodgy.
I think you guys are crazy who are concerned about the New Sony 300 with 2x TC. I think the degradation in AF performance and IQ will be very very minor. I'm a Canon shooter who owns the 100-300 and I would love to add a lightweight 300 to my bag to replace my Canon 300II. The New Sony will be quite the lightweight Swiss army knife and I'm betting performance with both TC's will be phenomenal.
I recall seeing a picture of a new 2X TC on SAR awhile ago. Wondering if they are working on one. I know, it’s SAR but once in a while he got stuff right.
