I put a few images in as a comparison and it's not immediately obvious that it is anything exceptional with the x2TC. If anything it highlights just how good the 200-600 is even with the 1.4TC on it.
Two are at 840mm with the 200-600 and the other is with the 100-400 in flight.
It also looks like it might have missed focus slightly, a bit front focussed on the body perhaps and somewhat underexposed so perhaps not the best comparison. A bit of direct light would probably have made a big difference.
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.
This is where it will likely fall on its face. Just like every lens before it with the 2xTCs. They are great for still subjects and hold IQ well. But AF back focuses just enough to ruin the large majority of shots once you start shooting BIF.
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.
Mattstig wrote:
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.
Not just you....even the 1.4TC on the 400GM and 600GM start to show enough back focus problems for BIF that one comes away somewhat disappointed. Of course the 2xTC is much worse.
I have totally eliminated using the 2xTC and have significantly cut down on my 1.4TC use on my 400GM and 600GM because of this.
gooby wrote:
Trying to decide if I should upgrade my 200-600 to the 600GM or save some money and get the 300 with a 2x TC for birding. Hmm.
If you like to do a lot of BIF and are okay handholding the weight of the 600GM then go for it for sure. If you don't do a lot of BIF and/or you would have to use tripod for the 600GM then 300GM/TCs probably a better option.
The 600GM hit rate for BIF compared to the 200-600 is night and day. The sharpness at greater distances and/or in lower light is night and day.
the comparison between 200-600 and 300 has already been posted, both for IQ (page 7) and for AF (page 11). The 200-600 continues to have the flexibility of a zoom that offers reference quality (for zooms, especially given the price). But the performance of the 300 is better in every respect, there is little to say, with the 2x it is very very similar to the performance of the 600gm (apart from bokeh obviously) which is to say the least one of the best lenses on the market!
what makes this 300 unique is that not only does it excel like the 300, but it allows you to obtain very high quality with the tc, such that at the 600 focal length, it is a step above the zoom and a step below the 600gm.
basically if sony had made a native 600 f5.6, I wouldn't have expected anything better than what this 300 offers with the 2x
_MacTwin_ wrote:
But the performance of the 300 is better in every respect, there is little to say, with the 2x it is very very similar to the performance of the 600gm (apart from bokeh obviously) which is to say the least one of the best lenses on the market!
Are you saying you can't see the IQ difference in the three comparison shoots on page 12?
Daran the shots are done with 600gm closed @5.6 (I asked him to make them at max ap. or f8, but at the moment they are only available at f5.6)….and there are some other test done by karmal (not till posted) where the difference are incredible little.
The once with bad result (air conditioner box) is not useful because he shot with the presence of a lot of refraction at that moment, he took other shots at a distance and the differences (even though the 600gm was still at f5.6 and not at the max aperture) are really minimal, nor so easy to find.
This does not mean that it is the same as the 600gm, absolutely not; the 600 has a very different bokeh, but in terms of details... the differences are smaller than between 200-600 and 300+2x, especially because the zoom loses a lot moving away from the center .
_MacTwin_ wrote:
Daran the shots are done with 600gm closed @5.6 (I asked him to make them at max ap. or f8, but at the moment they are only available at f5.6)….and there are some other test done by karmal (not posted) where the difference are incredible little.
The once with bad result (air conditioner box) is not useful because he shot with the presence of a lot of refraction at that moment, he took other shots at a distance and the differences (even though the 600gm was still at f5.6 and not at the max aperture) are really minimal, nor so easy to find....Show more →
To me all three shots look significantly better with the long prime. Maybe I'm just used to observing these differences. I have taken *a lot* of shots taken with the 200-600G and the 600GM. And there the difference in the image center is quite similar.
This does not mean that it is the same as the 600gm, absolutely not; the 600 has a very different bokeh, but in terms of details... the differences are smaller than between 200-600 and 300+2x,
There is a thread over at dpreview ("GM 300 on A7R IV - not much to criticize") with some controlled shots of 300GM&TC2 vs the 200-600G. In the image center they are very similar: the 300GM&TC2 ever so slightly sharper, less CA but some purple fringing. Off center the zoom looses IQ much faster than the GM.
Without the TC the 300GM seems rather like the 600GM: nearly flawless.
especially because the zoom loses a lot moving away from the center.
Yup. So if you crop small birds mostly from the image center you'd hardly gain anything compared to the zoom, whereas if the subject happens to end up nearer to the edges, or if you can make use of the entire frame, the difference is significant.
daran as you say the 200-600 as definition is not very far from the 600gm in real use, obviously if you look at the photos at 100% the differences are seen but they are not gigantic.
At the edges the zoom is definitely less incisive.
Well....I have posted several tests (but I have many more) and I can guarantee you that as in those posted the 300gm with the 2x always has something more than the 200-600.....always, obviously a lot at 300, a lot at 420 and a little at 600 (quite a bit at the edges).
This makes it clear how close it is to the 600gm precisely because the zoom already is not so far away.
The examples posted by Karmal are not done at full aperture, but by advantaging the 600 with a stop, basically these optics are used at full aperture so in my opinion the comparison should be made under those conditions.
In any case, he posted some examples that make little sense because the quality is affected by air refraction.
As I said on another forum he has taken other shots and the differences are definitely not very noticeable, maybe a tiny bit less contrast for the 300 but really minimal.
In any case they are informative tests, but the comparison makes little sense because the zoom has its usefulness at certain junctures...and it has its limitations, the 300 does not have the pliability of a zoom but it is always superior to the 200-600 for bokeh and IQ, the 600 has an even better bokeh (the best) and is further duplicative.
_MacTwin_ wrote:
basically these optics are used at full aperture so in my opinion the comparison should be made under those conditions.
For birding and where I'm shooting, I disagree.
Due to the small angle of view I find it is often easy to find a sufficiently distant background. So I rarely find myself needing to blur the background by opening the aperture. On the other hand for the most desirable closer subjects, I do tend to run out of DOF much more frequently than I run out of adequate backgrounds. The potentially lower ISO is also a factor, of course, but I try to plan my outings around good light in the first place anyway.
Having a look at my own images taken with the 600GM, about half of my favorites were f5.6 or slower and only about 5% were at f4. Of course that was rather biased by my thoughts and preferences when taking them. More to the point here, when comparing my 200-600G shots and the 600GM shots, it is usually the difference in sharpness (be that due to faster AF or actual lens sharpness) that makes me prefer the shots from the prime, not the softness of background nor the noise.
Anecdote: the one time someone actually commented on the surprising smoothness of a background, it was taken with the zoom and the background was simply a bunch of trees some 20 times further away than the bird.
Daran if you take data on 600GM thread....you will get 95% (maybe more) @ max aperture, and there are a lot of little birds shots.
I don't even take a 600f4 to use it at f5.6 or 8 except in rare cases, otherwise I adopt the 200-600 without even thinking about it and save weight and money.
One of the best plus of that lens is the bokeh.....or eventually the need of something more than 600mm (and again on the thread, near all shots with 1.4x are wide open).
Is my opinion, obviously, I don't waste time looking the photos @100% so any pluses in definition interest me very little, except for use with TC.
_MacTwin_ wrote:
Daran if you take data on 600GM thread....you will get 95% (maybe more) @ max aperture, and there are a lot of little birds shots.
What matters more to me is how I use the lens. Many of my bird photos are near the 600's MFD where DOF @ f/4 is scant. I'm using f/5.6 and f/8 far more often than f/4. I use the 600 GM for its image performance from center to corner and for the speed of its AF.
I don't take photos of birds, I work with photography in various fields, I don't discuss the fact that someone prefers to close down to have greater pdc, I simply evaluate the statistics.... in the post on the 600gm almost all the photos are at full aperture, and for the most of them are birds…
...