Douglas L wrote:
This was my finding too when I had the Z9 with the latest FW and the Nikon 600 TC for a few weeks in December last year. The A1 seemed to pick out the bald eagles with busy background quite a bit quicker. I sold the Nikon setup because I wasn't a fan of the Z9's size and weight, I kept my 600 GM. Since I shoot the 600 GM hand held and with a 1.4X TC on 95% of the time, I figured I may as well get the Z8 and the Nikon 800 PF to save some weight and $$$. I will have the Nikon Z8 and 800 PF in about a week. If I find the Z8+800 PF suits me better, I will sell the 600 GM.
With regard to the 300 GM, I may get one to use with the 2X TC (most of the time). I enjoy shooting hummingbirds at very close distance from my study, I have been using the Sony 200-600 for that for a few years due to its better MFD. Sounds like the 300 GM+2X TC will give me slightly sharper images with better bokeh, at a slight shorter MFD. I hope the 300 GM+2XTC will give me bigger hummingbirds than the 200-600 at 600mm. It's pretty well documented that at MDF the 200-600 is more like 550mm something. The new Sigma 500 or the Nikon 600 PF won't do it for me because of their MFD.
...Show more →
At MFD the 200-600 is just over 300mm, about 0.2x magnification. Not a whole lot more than the primes.
Ignore my words. Alex knows what he's doing. Anyhow it's common knowledge that A1's bird identification is behind many cameras as of now. Z8, A6700( I shot both) and A7RV are few. Sony is overdue on their 'major' FW upgrade. I doubt we will see any improvement in bird identification though as they use a special AI chip in newer cameras for the purpose. But let's hope so. Otherwise I'm happy to sell A1 and use Z8 with 800mm until A1II come out.
Maxxus46 wrote:
According to Alex phan, A1 is still superior regarding AF acquisition and lock on, especially so with cluttered backgrounds. This is in comparison to both Z9 and Z8 with latest firmware. Now if Sony could just give us a 600 and 800pf!
Agree. For birds we need all the FL we can get. Also the location matters. Where I live (Florida) there're birds in every focal length . Also until recently 500mm was the most popular FL for most birds shooters because of weight, price etc.
Douglas L wrote:
For most of the birds I shoot, 600 is still too short, that's why I have the 1.4x tc on the 600 GM 98% of the time. I shoot hand held 98% of the time as well. I ordered a Nikon 800 PF to try out since I need 800mm most of the time anyway. If it works out I will sell the 600 GM.
RikWriter wrote:
At 420, it looks exquisite. At 600, I may be wrong or it might be the resizing of the images, but it looks a bit softer than the 600 f4.
For sure, the 600/4 plays in a different league. Really only the shots I have with the bare lens match 600GM.
If you want to see a few of these shots in much better resolution where you can click in for details then head over to my Flickr page.
Sony 200-600 G @ 600mm:
mfd = 2.4 meters = 2400 mm
Max Reproduction Ratio (x) = 0,20
Effective focal lenght at mfd = 333 mm
Sony 600 GM
mfd = 4,5 m = 4500 mm
Max Reproduction Ratio (x) = 0,14
Effective focal lenght at mfd = 485 mm
Nikon Z 600/6.3 S
mfd = 4 m = 4000 mm
Max Reproduction Ratio (x) = 0,15
Effective focal lenght at mfd = 454 mm
So actually the Sony 200-600 w//1.4x tc (= 466 mm) has slightly more focal lenght than the Nikon 600 PF and slightly less than the Sony 600 GM.
However that formula doesn’t tell how the focal lenght changes at different focus distances which should be of more value for normal non-macro subjects.
If the breathing occurs more at very close distances imho it is more important to have a short mfd than highest focal lenght at mfd.
For instance I’d prefer a 600mm that focusses down to 1 meter at 100mm effective focal lenght than a 600mm that is 599mm at a mfd of 50 meters… 😉...Show more →
For the Sony 300mm, I get 2000/(.16+(1/.16) + 2) = 238mm effective focal length at minimum focus distance. With the 2x extender, it should be 476mm, handily beating the 200-600. At 2.4 meters, it will be even better.
How was the hit rate with the TC’s?
Did it change your opinion about using TC’s?
Yes it did change my mind. The hit rate was much better than I'm used to using them on my other lenses.
The light today sucked and it was still doing really well even with the 2xTC.
Still over the many sequences of bufflehead IF shots I took, the hit rate decreased with each subsequent TC power. But what can we really expect.
Overall I think this is a lens I could live with using TCs.
I wish I could try it in good light as it should do even better. Given how good it did today in gloomy light with a 2xTC I'm pretty impressed.
arbitrage wrote:
Yes it did change my mind. The hit rate was much better than I'm used to using them on my other lenses.
The light today sucked and it was still doing really well even with the 2xTC.
Still over the many sequences of bufflehead IF shots I took, the hit rate decreased with each subsequent TC power. But what can we really expect.
Overall I think this is a lens I could live with using TCs.
I wish I could try it in good light as it should do even better. Given how good it did today in gloomy light with a 2xTC I'm pretty impressed....Show more →
You just cost me $6000. I just ordered the 2x TC, will order the 300 GM later. I won't have real use of it until the hummers arrive in our region in mid April.
arbitrage wrote:
Yes it did change my mind. The hit rate was much better than I'm used to using them on my other lenses.
The light today sucked and it was still doing really well even with the 2xTC.
Still over the many sequences of bufflehead IF shots I took, the hit rate decreased with each subsequent TC power. But what can we really expect.
Overall I think this is a lens I could live with using TCs.
I wish I could try it in good light as it should do even better. Given how good it did today in gloomy light with a 2xTC I'm pretty impressed....Show more →
this one of the swallow looks pretty good. how cropped is this one?
Thanks for posting these. Based on ur memories about 200-600, ignoring the price difference, do u think this lens with 2x TC has better AF? Or at least 1.4x?
arbitrage wrote:
Yes it did change my mind. The hit rate was much better than I'm used to using them on my other lenses.
The light today sucked and it was still doing really well even with the 2xTC.
Still over the many sequences of bufflehead IF shots I took, the hit rate decreased with each subsequent TC power. But what can we really expect.
Overall I think this is a lens I could live with using TCs.
I wish I could try it in good light as it should do even better. Given how good it did today in gloomy light with a 2xTC I'm pretty impressed....Show more →
For the Sony 300mm, I get 2000/(.16+(1/.16) + 2) = 238mm effective focal length at minimum focus distance. With the 2x extender, it should be 476mm, handily beating the 200-600. At 2.4 meters, it will be even better.
For sure. I just want to see the image quality wide open with TC's first.
how one can judge the resolution compared to another optic from a single photo and without a direct comparison remains a mystery, but evidently someone need to protect the honor of some optics.
The shots are beautiful, turning to flickr makes it impossible to distinguish what configuration each shot was taken with, and that says a lot, but at the end of the day it is absolutely clear to me that the difference of the three superteles lies solely in the bokeh/focal.
The eagerness for 200% vision to look for the atom I still don't understand, to me the 400 2.8 makes sense because of its bokeh at 2.8, because when multiplied it allows a better MFD than a 600, or perhaps because it is more portable than the 600, with 2x isn't fast as the new 300x...but still usable.
The 600 makes sense if I want maximum bokeh on subjects at a certain distance, if I need to go beyond 600mm (sometimes even 1200mm...if necessary and refraction/air conditions allow).
The 300 makes sense for its bokeh at 2.8, because it is the lightest and most transportable of the 3, because if 600mm can be enough for me, it is definitely the most comfortable tool to use for lightness and bulk, without any need for a monopod even all day long.
Finally, the 200-600 for its obvious pliability given by the zoom, and the rendering that bokeh aside (that's the aperture...) has a definition similar to much but much more expensive optics; it is the best zoom in that range and costs absurdly little.
Honestly, the only thing I miss at the moment is the 500f4, which I personally would prefer to the 600 for portability (maybe dreaming of it on 2kg...), and as mentioned....a nice 800f6.3 as Nikon did, an enviable solution...
arbitrage wrote:
Yes it did change my mind. The hit rate was much better than I'm used to using them on my other lenses.
The light today sucked and it was still doing really well even with the 2xTC.
Still over the many sequences of bufflehead IF shots I took, the hit rate decreased with each subsequent TC power. But what can we really expect.
Overall I think this is a lens I could live with using TCs.
I wish I could try it in good light as it should do even better. Given how good it did today in gloomy light with a 2xTC I'm pretty impressed....Show more →
This is really helpful. Having just upgraded my A9 to an A1, at some point I’d like to get a good prime (that can do 600mm) to complement my 200-600. Setting aside the option of Z8 with a PF lens (I’m really not keen on having a second system), I think it’s a choice between the 600mm f/4 and this new 300mm + 2xTC.
Of course, the 600 prime has the ultimate IQ and AF but, for me (for hiking in the Scottish Highlands), the weight of the 300mm + TC is quite attractive. So it’s a trade-off: superior performance and ability to go beyond 600mm (especially 840mm) vs. weight and easier handling.
BUT I’d only consider the 300+TC if the AF is materially better than the 200-600 at 600mm. It needs to be noticeably better for me to justify the £5,800 (UKP) to myself.
So I have the same question as Jemini: based on your recollection of the zoom, do you think the 300 + 2xTC gives a worthwhile AF improvement?
In any event, thanks for posting these images so quickly. Fascinating (and rather impressive, as always, particularly given the crummy light).
Andrew CD wrote:
This is really helpful. Having just upgraded my A9 to an A1, at some point I’d like to get a good prime (that can do 600mm) to complement my 200-600. Setting aside the option of Z8 with a PF lens (I’m really not keen on having a second system), I think it’s a choice between the 600mm f/4 and this new 300mm + 2xTC.
Of course, the 600 prime has the ultimate IQ and AF but, for me (for hiking in the Scottish Highlands), the weight of the 300mm + TC is quite attractive. So it’s a trade-off: superior performance and ability to go beyond 600mm (especially 840mm) vs. weight and easier handling.
BUT I’d only consider the 300+TC if the AF is materially better than the 200-600 at 600mm. It needs to be noticeably better for me to justify the £5,800 (UKP) to myself.
So I have the same question as Jemini: based on your recollection of the zoom, do you think the 300 + 2xTC gives a worthwhile AF improvement?
In any event, thanks for posting these images so quickly. Fascinating (and rather impressive, as always, particularly given the crummy light).
For hiking and lightly packed birding, I still do not rule out the new Sigma 500mm f5.6 myself.
It appears to have very fast and accurate auto focus, decent Sony level OS and it is 500mm without a TC involved.
It would be very interesting to see a cropped to match image from the Sig 500 compared to an image from the 300GM with 2XTC.
Certainly with a high resolution body with the A1, this could turn out in favor of the Sigma 500.
In other words, when you don't intend to use 300mm or 420mm, and don't expect to need 30fps, I wonder what the 300GM has over the Sigma 500.
ChrisMak wrote:
For hiking and lightly packed birding, I still do not rule out the new Sigma 500mm f5.6 myself.
It appears to have very fast and accurate auto focus, decent Sony level OS and it is 500mm without a TC involved.
It would be very interesting to see a cropped to match image from the Sig 500 compared to an image from the 300GM with 2XTC.
Certainly with a high resolution body with the A1, this could turn out in favor of the Sigma 500.
In other words, when you don't intend to use 300mm or 420mm, and don't expect to need 30fps, I wonder what the 300GM has over the Sigma 500....Show more →
Looking over the A9III images posted here, 120FPS is an absolute game changer for BIF.
I would not be caught dead buying a birding lens stuck at 12% of the frame rate on the A9III.
If you don't photograph BIF or dog agility trials, sports, animal behavior etc. then 15FPS is fine but it's utterly uncompetitive in the world that Sony just brought us with the A9III.
Which is really awful, I hope Sony removes this limitation from its system because the Sigma 500/5.6 looks like an awesome BIF lens otherwise.
Jemini wrote:
Thanks for posting these. Based on ur memories about 200-600, ignoring the price difference, do u think this lens with 2x TC has better AF? Or at least 1.4x?
It has been so long since I've shot the 200-600 that I'm not sure. AF was very snappy even with the 2xTC. My gut says the AF is probably faster even with the 2x than the 200-600. Those dual linear motors and still having a 1/3 stop light advantage will likely overcome any AF speed drop from the TC.
. Anyhow it's common knowledge that A1's bird identification is behind many cameras as of now. Z8, A6700( I shot both) and A7RV are few. Sony is overdue on their 'major' FW upgrade. I doubt we will see any improvement in bird identification though as they use a special AI chip in newer cameras for the purpose. But let's hope so. Otherwise I'm happy to sell A1 and use Z8 with 800mm until A1II come out. 
