bartr wrote:
Another really in-depth review. Lots of useful info even though I don't speak a word of Korean:
Especially the 2x TC section at the end (starting around 24:30). There's comparisons between 300GM + 1.4x vs 100-400 and the 300GM + 2x vs 200-600 @ 600mm
Whoa! My much-loved 100-400 might be looking for a new home. 🙂
I wish that the 300GM had a little shorter MFD, but with everything else Sony did to blow away the prior gold standards of this lens type, simply equally the MFD of the Canon is still impressive. After all, the primary use case for this lens is not close-up, but that is a nice use case for the 100-400.
No more doubts about the sharpness. What do you think about AF? Does the 2Z affect AF speed much? Or any comparison to 200-600? I'm waiting for the AF performance with 1.4X. Also the OSS.
Maxxus46 wrote:
Looks great, but to be honest I've seen results with similar detail from the 200-600. Not sure the 2x TC is anything special with this combo
Web images are not the best way to discern image detail.
The samples directly above have a certain quality, viewing on my Eizo 4K display, that sets them apart from the 200-600G i.m.o. Based on these samples I have no reservations about IQ, I keep seeing the warm tone or cast in the 300GM+2xTC samples, but it's in no way a detriment to the image quality.
I assume these were really close up though, filling the frame?
Maxxus46 wrote:
Looks great, but to be honest I've seen results with similar detail from the 200-600. Not sure the 2x TC is anything special with this combo
+1
There are sharp images, but I'm getting similar performance with the 200-600.
Bokeh would have to be compared with 2 identical pictures, not sure there will be a significant difference with 1/3 stop only.
At pag 7 there are some tests, certainly the 200-600 allows similar, but not equal photos.
In the center the 300+2x comes out a bit more defined while at the edges the difference is quite large in favor of the 300+2x, and it clearly has a nicer bokeh given not only by the fraction of a stop, but also by the "simpler" optical scheme.
Another merit of the 300gm over the zoom can be seen in this video...
_MacTwin_ wrote:
At pag 7 there are some tests, certainly the 200-600 allows similar, but not equal photos.
In the center the 300+2x comes out a bit more defined while at the edges the difference is quite large in favor of the 300+2x, and it clearly has a nicer bokeh given not only by the fraction of a stop, but also by the "simpler" optical scheme.
Another merit of the 300gm over the zoom can be seen in this video...
I don't know how to incorporate the YouTube video....sry
Interesting, 300+2x seems to focus faster than 200-600@600mm
The 200-600 is a G. The 300 is a GM. The linear motors in the GM don't know there is a 1.4x or 2x TC involved. So it really comes down to whether the TC introduced some signal lag that could cause it to be slower. Or the smaller f/stop introducing something. It sounds like anything introduced by using the TC didn't impact it to the point where it slowed down as much as some may have expected.
The GM is a brand new lens and the G has been out for quite a while. So I'm not sure it should be incredibly surprising.
j4nu wrote:
Interesting, 300+2x seems to focus faster than 200-600@600mm
Yes, you're right, but it still is to me.
I think that's the first case when a lens wit 2x TC beats its modern rival without one. Even 70-200/2.8 GMII did not fare that well and it was regarded as the best "TC-taking" lens until now I think. There are reports of people not liking even 600GM+2x and 200-600G is generally considered to have a pretty fast AF.
So, yes - I still think it's a first ... tsdevine wrote:
The 200-600 is a G. The 300 is a GM. The linear motors in the GM don't know there is a 1.4x or 2x TC involved. So it really comes down to whether the TC introduced some signal lag that could cause it to be slower. Or the smaller f/stop introducing something. It sounds like anything introduced by using the TC didn't impact it to the point where it slowed down as much as some may have expected.
The GM is a brand new lens and the G has been out for quite a while. So I'm not sure it should be incredibly surprising.
_MacTwin_ wrote:
At pag 7 there are some tests, certainly the 200-600 allows similar, but not equal photos.
In the center the 300+2x comes out a bit more defined while at the edges the difference is quite large in favor of the 300+2x, and it clearly has a nicer bokeh given not only by the fraction of a stop, but also by the "simpler" optical scheme.
Another merit of the 300gm over the zoom can be seen in this video...
I don't know how to incorporate the YouTube video....sry
If you use the "watch" version of the YouTube links. Had to use a few *** to prevent it displaying as a video.
(the $4K question) 
...