alexands wrote:
Thanks for posting. The 300 2.8 GM with 2x looks decent in the first two comparison pictures but much less so in the last comparison.
Keep in mind that the tests are done with 600GM @ f5.6!....they are not @ f4, as I say to Karmal it will be more useful to compare all lenses at max aperture, or all @ the typical f8.
The last photo in my opinion have a problem because seems to loose too many detail (comparing to the other 300+2x photos), today I'll try to shot similar photo with mine; I haven't the 600gm but it can give an idea of detail on similar distance shot.
Anyway is evident the yellow cast applied by the 2x, I hope in a new one with better performance..
Some shots with 2x at long distance (keep in mind that chimneys produce heat and thus possible refraction), this are converted in dng compressed lossy to reduce dimensions if someone need raw just ask.
I really hope not ....seeing how much I paid for it!!!
Apart from Leica optics all go down, but Sony superteles still hold up very well, honestly I see 3500 as unlikely for very many years.
These pictures with the 2x teleconverter look great. I still don't have a sense of how effective the AF is with moving objects when the 2x is attached.
alexands wrote:
These pictures with the 2x teleconverter look great. I still don't have a sense of how effective the AF is with moving objects when the 2x is attached.
Agree, there is limited info/examples of moving subjects. My experience with Sony TCs is they can be sharp/work well on static subjects but haven’t worked well for action.
chez wrote:
1/2 the weight of the 600 gm must also come into the decision.
Good point. I already don't love the 200-600 for handheld and shoot primarily on a gimbal head on a tripod. This would allow for comfortable handheld shooting. Just want to make sure I'm not getting identical IQ as my 200-600 for an extra $6k.
gooby wrote:
Good point. I already don't love the 200-600 for handheld and shoot primarily on a gimbal head on a tripod. This would allow for comfortable handheld shooting. Just want to make sure I'm not getting identical IQ as my 200-600 for an extra $6k.
There's also closer MFD and less weight than the 200-600, even if you include the weight of both 1.4x and 2x extenders together.
Mattstig wrote:
Agree, there is limited info/examples of moving subjects. My experience with Sony TCs is they can be sharp/work well on static subjects but haven’t worked well for action.
What's the working aperture of the lens when using the TCs? I haven't had a problem with the 1.4x on the a1 & 600 GM.
I’ve used the 1.4x on the 200-600, the 70-200gmii, and the 400gm, so up to f4 (on a9 and a1). It could be copy variability or user error too, but I perceived the shortcomings of adding the tc when Ive used it, especially for moving subjects. Even on the 400, which was a loaner but behaved nicely sans tc. I’ve definitely heard/ seen comments from many folks who find the 1.4 works great, so maybe it’s me. Or maybe I need to try a different copy of the 1.4x. telyt wrote:
What's the working aperture of the lens when using the TCs? I haven't had a problem with the 1.4x on the a1 & 600 GM.
F4 & F5.6