arbitrage wrote:
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.
And are you happy with the AF accuracy and consistency? Any lens can get some shots sharp. The ones we want get most of the sharp!
somersettr wrote:
And are you happy with the AF accuracy and consistency? Any lens can get some shots sharp. The ones we want get most of the sharp!
Yes I was happy with it. Could only get better if the sun was shining. And I haven't touched my 2xTC for probably a year as I had such poor AF accuracy and consistency.
But lets be clear, it is not even close to the consistency of a bare 600GM.
arbitrage wrote:
Yes I was happy with it. Could only get better if the sun was shining. And I haven't touched my 2xTC for probably a year as I had such poor AF accuracy and consistency.
But lets be clear, it is not even close to the consistency of a bare 600GM.
Thanks for that. I just need it to be at least as consistent as the 200-600. Anything better than that is a bonus.
lightskyland wrote:
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.
I agree Sony is agressively trying to hurt potential Sigma sales. With a camera like the A9III, the Sigma 500 is virtually incompatible due to limitation to 15fps and no TC options, which is really essential with a 24mp full frame camera.
For use on the A1, it is less clear cut.
I don't agree you can not do BIF with 15fps btw.
In fact, I usually have the A1 set to high instead of maximum frame rate.
You otherwise clutter your cards with far too many images that are virtually the same except for really fast flapping birds. For ducks or other waterfowl eg. do you really need to shoot 120fps?
You made me look at my account balance. I'm interested in getting the lens and 1.4x for BIF only. Based on your experience with 2x, I'd guess 300+1.4x will behave very close to native 420/4 I know most of the time 420mm is not enough reach. Still.. At least I want to try it.. Thank you. Did you get chance to play with Nikon 400?
arbitrage wrote:
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.
OK, this pushed me over the fence. I asked friend who has both the 300 GM and 200-600 to shoot a subject at 2.4 meters (the 200-600's MDF) to see the difference in size. Here are the results. I know some don't really care about MDF but I do, as I have this peculiar situation where I can shoot hummingbirds from about 2 to 2.5 meters. So the 300+2X TC will give me much bigger hummingbird at 2.5 meters than the 200-600 would.
Need to sell some lenses that I don't really use to get this puppy. I am keeping the 200-600 as my main airshow lens.
I do notice the yellow cast from the 300 GM+ 2X TC that Chrismac kept pointing out.
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 →
Very good point. Thank you for mentioning this. I must confess, I had not really given any thought to the Sigma. And, yes, it would certainly be interesting to see this comparison.
My question re. autofocus compared with the 200-600 applies to the Sigma, too, I guess. It seems to me entirely plausible that both primes, the Sigma 500mm and the Sony 300mm (even with 2xTC) are likely to have faster — and more accurate? — AF and, even more so with the Sigma, there’s a non-trivial weight advantage. Whether the combination of lightness, handling and better (most likely) AF is enough to justify spending something like $3,000 or $6,000 is the big question ….
The other thought in the back of my mind, concerning the 300mm is: is it really sensible to buy a lens if it’s almost always going to be used with a TC? Similarly, for the Sigma 500mm, the inability to use a TC is a real pain. Would I really be happy with 500mm? Scotland ain’t Florida ….
So, for sure, the weight of the 600mm makes it a very different proposition but, in the end ……..
(One thing I’m very good at, though, is sitting on the fence. Maybe Sony will release a PF-type lens?!?)
Thanks once again for your thoughts, though. Very helpful.
Douglas L wrote:
OK, this pushed me over the fence. I asked friend who has both the 300 GM and 200-600 to shoot a subject at 2.4 meters (the 200-600's MDF) to see the difference in size. Here are the results. I know some don't really care about MDF but I do, as I have this peculiar situation where I can shoot hummingbirds from about 2 to 2.5 meters. So the 300+2X TC will give me much bigger hummingbird at 2.5 meters than the 200-600 would.
Need to sell some lenses that I don't really use to get this puppy. I am keeping the 200-600 as my main airshow lens....Show more →
Wouldn't the 100 to 400 GM give you bigger hummingbirds than either of these lenses?.
arbitrage wrote:
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.
Interesting ….
What you say sounds entirely plausible.
Whether it’s a level of improvement which, even in combination with the weight & handling advantage, justifies spending over $7,000 (the USD equivalent of the UK list price) is a moot point ….
(As I said in another post just a moment ago, I’m just not (yet) quite comfortable with the idea of buying a lens if it’s almost always going to be used with a TC.)
Andrew
PS. And I’d really rather not hear, any time soon, that you think the Z8 + 600mm PF is a winner ….
alexands wrote:
Wouldn't the 100 to 400 GM give you bigger hummingbirds than either of these lenses?.
Only if I can get that close to the hummers. I do have the 100-400 GM. I may try to shoot the 100-400 GM at 2.5 meters to see how big the subject is vs the 200-600 at 600mm
Jemini wrote:
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.
I do like your comment “… birds in every focal length”. Even though it makes me slightly green with envy. The birds — and the light — here in the UK tend to be slightly different. Particularly way up north where the air gets cold (roughly 57°N where I use my cameras most ).
alexands wrote:
Wouldn't the 100 to 400 GM give you bigger hummingbirds than either of these lenses?.
For myself, terrain has limited the usefulness of the 100-400 for hummingbirds; generally the bird is above eye level and to get close enough to take advantage of the 100-400's MFD I'd be pointing the lens upward and get bright sky backgrounds.
When the bird is at or below eye level this isn't a problem, and I've used the 100-400 and also a 280mm (MFD 1.7 meters) for hummingbirds where the MFD was very handy.
telyt wrote:
For myself, terrain has limited the usefulness of the 100-400 for hummingbirds; generally the bird is above eye level and to get close enough to take advantage of the 100-400's MFD I'd be pointing the lens upward and get bright sky backgrounds.
For me, the distance between my hummingbird flower plot to the study where I mostly shoot from is about 2 meters. The closer MFD of the 100-400 GM doesn't really apply in this situation, unless I go out and sit about 1 meter from the flower plot, I highly doubt that the hummingbirds would come to feed with me being this close. Shooting from the study, they probably don't even realize I am there.
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 →
Thanks! Appreciate hearing your thoughts
Although, I thought I had ruled out this lens. But now…😄
Douglas L wrote:
OK, this pushed me over the fence. I asked friend who has both the 300 GM and 200-600 to shoot a subject at 2.4 meters (the 200-600's MDF) to see the difference in size. Here are the results. I know some don't really care about MDF but I do, as I have this peculiar situation where I can shoot hummingbirds from about 2 to 2.5 meters. So the 300+2X TC will give me much bigger hummingbird at 2.5 meters than the 200-600 would.
Need to sell some lenses that I don't really use to get this puppy. I am keeping the 200-600 as my main airshow lens.
I do notice the yellow cast from the 300 GM+ 2X TC that Chrismac kept pointing out....Show more →
That is very encouraging! So at 2.4m, the 300mm has about 50% more magnification than the 200-600. So at 2m, the 300mm will be about double to 200-600 wh9ich would make it quite good for small subjects such as insects and flowers.
Just one silly question though. Was the camera attached to the 300mm definately not in APS-C mode?
alexands wrote:
Wouldn't the 100 to 400 GM give you bigger hummingbirds than either of these lenses?.
At f/5.6 the 100-400 is 0.35x MM compared to the 300GM/2xTC which is 0.32x. But you have to get within 1 meter on the 100-400 to achieve that MM. Hard to do with hummers. I think you’ll fill the frame more shooting back at 2m with the 300/2x. Or at least it will be close.
Of course you can throw TCs on the 100-400 and get max magnification.
arbitrage wrote:
At f/5.6 the 100-400 is 0.35x MM compared to the 300GM/2xTC which is 0.32x. But you have to get within 1 meter on the 100-400 to achieve that MM. Hard to do with hummers. I think you’ll fill the frame more shooting back at 2m with the 300/2x. Or at least it will be close.
Of course you can throw TCs on the 100-400 and get max magnification.
I'm not satisfied with the image quality of the 100-400 + 1.4x TC combination.
somersettr wrote:
That is very encouraging! So at 2.4m, the 300mm has about 50% more magnification than the 200-600. So at 2m, the 300mm will be about double to 200-600 wh9ich would make it quite good for small subjects such as insects and flowers.
Just one silly question though. Was the camera attached to the 300mm definately not in APS-C mode?
It does look too good to be true, doesn't it?. I highly doubt if he used APS-C mode by accident in the 300 +2X TC shots, but will check with him.
Andrew CD wrote:
Very good point. Thank you for mentioning this. I must confess, I had not really given any thought to the Sigma. And, yes, it would certainly be interesting to see this comparison.
My question re. autofocus compared with the 200-600 applies to the Sigma, too, I guess. It seems to me entirely plausible that both primes, the Sigma 500mm and the Sony 300mm (even with 2xTC) are likely to have faster — and more accurate? — AF and, even more so with the Sigma, there’s a non-trivial weight advantage. Whether the combination of lightness, handling and better (most likely) AF is enough to justify spending something like $3,000 or $6,000 is the big question ….
The other thought in the back of my mind, concerning the 300mm is: is it really sensible to buy a lens if it’s almost always going to be used with a TC? Similarly, for the Sigma 500mm, the inability to use a TC is a real pain. Would I really be happy with 500mm? Scotland ain’t Florida ….
So, for sure, the weight of the 600mm makes it a very different proposition but, in the end ……..
(One thing I’m very good at, though, is sitting on the fence. Maybe Sony will release a PF-type lens?!?)
Thanks once again for your thoughts, though. Very helpful.
I put a video on YouTube showing the af behavior in various configurations and also of the 200-600.
I honestly don't think there is a justification for buying any of the superteles, either it's work (and even then you would have to weigh the purchase against a cheaper optic), or you simply buy because you can and want to.
Is the 300gm better than the 200-600? Yes, without a doubt in its 3 configurations it is a killer, but it is not necessary....it is a plus that you take only if you want to and can afford the splurge.
By the way each optic has its own usefulness, not necessary, but useful..
But if you have doubts about spending on something that involves a very heavy economic effort....perhaps it would be better to find a way to try it out, through friends, acquaintances or possibly renting it. Theoretically, one could also use the right of withdrawal if provided.
. I'm interested in getting the lens and 1.4x for BIF only. Based on your experience with 2x, I'd guess 300+1.4x will behave very close to native 420/4 I know most of the time 420mm is not enough reach. Still.. At least I want to try it.. Thank you. Did you get chance to play with Nikon 400?
).