...correction, I was looking from my cell phone and found the rendering of the 300 indecent (thinking it was done at 300mm).
Yes, on a close range chart the differences are small I had ascertained that as well. But as the focus point moves away....the differences with the zoom increase, especially as you move away from the center.
The 300 is crazy, I have also bought and used canon and Nikon systems, with almost all the top optics and superteles, to date I do not remember such a sharp lens, the performance with the 2x is simply amazing (and the 2x could perhaps even be better).
I love the 200-600, it is simply amazing the performance offered for a ridiculous cost, it is pliable, and I have no intention of selling it. But in real use at a distance it pays off from the 300.
At 600mm it pays especially as you move from the center, at 420mm the difference becomes clear even without 100% vision, at 300 there is just no history.
Again, the short-distance chart does not give a useful indication in real distance use.
It is clear that you are shooting a small bird on perch at short distance....the only difference will be in the slightly better bokeh of the 300+2x (and vastly better at 300), but if the use is for distant subjects....the story changes.
Daran wrote:
Not sure what you are expecting. It is night and day if you crop or zoom in deep enough. If you view the image as a whole at common viewing scales you may not notice any difference. Depending on subject matter and processing some purple fringing may still be visible. In the center it is closer to the 200-600G than to the long prime. The images I base this on are somewhere within https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67528525 (not my images).
Well, yes, the point is "zoom[ing] in deep enough".
Thanks, that's what I thought, the 300/2.8 + 2X is comparable to the 200-600 at the long end, not to the 600/4.
Lighskyland seems that you wanna see only what you wanna see…
Maybe you didn’t read what I wrote, maybe you haven’t seen the page 7 test or the shots in previous page with 600gm…
The 300+2x is more near to 600gm rather than 200-600…
The test in short distance doesn’t give evidence in any case even from 200-600 and 600gm…
_MacTwin_ wrote:
The test in short distance doesn’t give evidence in any case even from 200-600 and 600gm…
I disagree.
The test chart mentioned above is 24" in size, hence should be about 8m distant. That is not a short distance for a lens with an MFD of 2m. This is also already further than where I would want to shoot song birds. In my own tests of the 200-600G and 600GM I certainly failed to see a significant change in sharpness at further distances. Other than atmospheric effects. I looked at the DNGs you helpfully provided (the five DNGs from p.12#7). They were shoot at noon across rooftops in sunlight. None of them seem properly sharp to me. Which is unsurprising as there is heat haze. I would not want to judge lens performance from such shots.
PS: There also is lens variation to consider, we all tend to test only one copy. Especially zooms can vary quite a bit.
Not sharp?
Daran if for you those are not sharp all the other lenses should be thrown away! from 100-400 to 200-600, 70-200….
If if you compare the 200-600 with the 600gm on dpr the differences in the center are really minimal. but as the distance increases the difference becomes more evident. what distinguishes them in real use is everything else, the bokeh, the AF, the construction...
_MacTwin_ wrote:
Lighskyland seems that you wanna see only what you wanna see…
Maybe you didn’t read what I wrote, maybe you haven’t seen the page 7 test or the shots in previous page with 600gm…
The 300+2x is more near to 600gm rather than 200-600…
The test in short distance doesn’t give evidence in any case even from 200-600 and 600gm…
The long distance photos of the crane are useless for comparing the two lenses, atmospheric blurring will always visibly degrade an image taken from more than 200 meters or so. Often much shorter distances than that.
We have to use controlled tests at shorter distances. Preferably something in the 5-20 meter range if possible.
The 300/2.8 GM is a superb lens, of this there is no doubt whatsoever. But putting the 2x on anything will degrade the results and even the 1.4x is marginal.
Looking at the A/B tests on page 7 of the dollar bills (which are not the ideal test subject, a test chart is much better), there is a slight advantage for the 600/4 visible in the finest details of the images.
The head-to-head test chart shots later in the thread with the 200-600 show a draw - this is a super result for the 300 to be certain!
I am sure that objective measures (MTF testing using optical equipment, or perfectly done test chart images) against the 600/4 will show a significant and clear difference between the 600/4 and the 300/2.8 + 2x, especially at f/5.6 for both. There is nothing magical about a teleconverter. It always negatively impacts the final results.
but it is obvious that the tc degrades the image but if you start from a value, let's say 100, perhaps with the degradation you get 70, if you start from 200... you get another output. I repeat...if the shots at the fireplace (20-25m) appear to you as not sharp...forget about any other lens like 200-600 and similar...given the decidedly less defined rendering.
and declare that there is a clear difference in the shots of the crane, on the previous page... .. in my opinion it is uncommentable (looking @100% which is absolutely useless and has nothing to do with photography),not even a hawk could notice any difference.
Ps
It's not just sparrow photos that exist, the highest number of users of these lenses take other things: motorbikes, cars, skiers, footballers...
The test chart mentioned above is 24" in size, hence should be about 8m distant. That is not a short distance for a lens with an MFD of 2m. This is also already further than where I would want to shoot song birds. In my own tests of the 200-600G and 600GM I certainly failed to see a significant change in sharpness at further distances. Other than atmospheric effects. I looked at the DNGs you helpfully provided (the five DNGs from p.12#7). They were shoot at noon across rooftops in sunlight. None of them seem properly sharp to me. Which is unsurprising as there is heat haze. I would not want to judge lens performance from such shots.
PS: There also is lens variation to consider, we all tend to test only one copy. Especially zooms can vary quite a bit....Show more →
The images from the top of #12 show a very obvious superiority for the 600/4 vs the 300/2.8 in contrast and resolution, despite the atmospheric blurring. Especially the last one. It's not even close.
_MacTwin_ wrote:
but it is obvious that the tc degrades the image but if you start from a value, let's say 100, perhaps with the degradation you get 70, if you start from 200... you get another output. I repeat...if the shots at the fireplace (20-25m) appear to you as not sharp...forget about any other lens like 200-600 and similar...given the decidedly less defined rendering.
and declare that there is a clear difference in the shots of the crane, on the previous page... @100% .. in my opinion it is uncommentable (which is absolutely useless and has nothing to do with photography),not even a hawk could notice any difference.
Ps
It's not just sparrow photos that exist, the highest number of users of these lenses take other things: motorbikes, cars, skiers, footballers... ...Show more →
I never said there was any visible difference in the crane photos.
And the crane setup is completely useless for distinguishing lens sharpness. WAYYYYYY too much atmosphere blurring the images at that distance, even with ideal seeing (which is definitely not the case in a full sun day).
reiterating that observing photos at 100% is not photography, it can be called a passion for microscopes but not photography, when the differences must be looked for with a loupe... the problem is not in the lenses..
_MacTwin_ wrote:
reiterating that observing photos at 100% is not photography, it can be called a passion for microscopes but not photography,
So you do not crop your bird images? Do you commonly shoot bird images?
Which ever lens or lens/TC combo is sharpest at 100% is mostly meaningless if you shoot anything that moves faster than a bear lumbering down a mountainside.
Where Sony cameras/TC combos totally fall apart is when shooting moving subjects. The hit rate compared to the bare lens goes down remarkably. Small amounts of back focus (focused on the body or tail) ruin so many of the shots when the DOF is narrow that it is a recipe for end of day frustration looking at the images. In good light with the 1.4 you usually get enough in critical head/eye focus that you can still be happy at the end of the day. The 2xTC is just always disappointing at the end of the day. In less than ideal light even the 1.4TC often dissapoints.
Maybe the 300GM bucks that trend...I have my strong doubts that it will. I'm hoping the weather holds out from full on rain for this Saturday so I might get to try the 300GM. If not this Saturday then it will be at least a month before I can test it.
birds are not part of my job. it can happen during a ws abroad as documentation of the fauna, but if I were to manage to make a 100% video crop, it would mean that I have taken a useless photo. Furthermore, there are not only small birds!
Even a 70-200 can be usefull..
_MacTwin_ wrote:
reiterating that observing photos at 100% is not photography, it can be called a passion for microscopes but not photography, when the differences must be looked for with a loupe... the problem is not in the lenses..
When photographing wildlife cropping might be the only way to make a usable photo. I don't expect to use a TC or crop 100% every time but I'd like TC use and cropping to be a viable option.
arbitrage wrote:
A little off topic but when you can't decide on what to buy....why not buy them all?
It does showcase how small the 300GM is.
That’s basically what I did.
