pwpub wrote:
Not sure about this. I know from at least three other owners of the FE 400/2.8 who were really disappointed with the performance of the 2x TC. Maybe there is or was an issue with this particular combo.
From my experience with the 2x converter on the 70-200 GM II, 200-600 G, and 100-400 GM, sharpness and contrast at close range (up to 10m) are very good but drop off considerably the longer the distance. And Galer's 2x shots seem to be all at closer range. When comparing 140% (with t1.4x TC) to 200% enlargements against the 2x TC with the mentioned zooms, the latter will loose nearly always on distant targets, in addition to the light loss penalty.
So I would be interested to learn how the 300/2.8 & 2x TC combo performs in the distance.
telyt wrote:
A lot of other factors come into play when distant targets are used. I'd reserve judgement until these factors are acknowledged and avoided.
Quite. One obvious factor is that with the 200-600 and, to a lesser degree, the 100-400, using the 2x TC will result in a rather smaller aperture than would be the case with the 300/2.8 (f/5.6 vs f/12.7 at 600mm with the 200-600, I think?). I can’t believe that wouldn’t have a much more significant effect on both AF performance and image quality than it would with the 300. And @freaklikeme ‘s comment about zooms sounds quite plausible to me, too.
A lot of factors? I can actually think of only two: heat shimmering/distortion, poor/average lens sample (lens, converter, or worse - both). Both had no effect in my testings, which did cover a range of roughly 40-140 meters, AF and manually focused, aperture wide open or max. one stop closed, with 60MP sensor body. Care to expand what other factors exactly could play a role?
telyt wrote:
A lot of other factors come into play when distant targets are used. I'd reserve judgement until these factors are acknowledged and avoided.
pwpub wrote:
Not sure about this. I know from at least three other owners of the FE 400/2.8 who were really disappointed with the performance of the 2x TC. Maybe there is or was an issue with this particular combo.
From my experience with the 2x converter on the 70-200 GM II, 200-600 G, and 100-400 GM, sharpness and contrast at close range (up to 10m) are very good but drop off considerably the longer the distance. And Galer's 2x shots seem to be all at closer range. When comparing 140% (with t1.4x TC) to 200% enlargements against the 2x TC with the mentioned zooms, the latter will loose nearly always on distant targets, in addition to the light loss penalty.
So I would be interested to learn how the 300/2.8 & 2x TC combo performs in the distance.
I'm not saying the 2x is the perfect solution or that there isn't QC variations with them, but after testing out the 100-400GM with the 2x, the 200-600 with the 1.4x, the 400GM with the 2x, and the 600/4 with the 1.4x, only the 600+1.4x proved a better way to 800mm+, with the 400+2x fairly close at any distance (FC and a minor loss of resolution being the big differences). It'll be interesting to see how the 300+2x does against the bare 200-600.
freaklikeme wrote:
I'm not saying the 2x is the perfect solution or that there isn't QC variations with them, but after testing out the 100-400GM with the 2x, the 200-600 with the 1.4x, the 400GM with the 2x, and the 600/4 with the 1.4x, only the 600+1.4x proved a better way to 800mm+, with the 400+2x fairly close at any distance (FC and a minor loss of resolution being the big differences). It'll be interesting to see how the 300+2x does against the bare 200-600.
How does the 400 with 1.4x compare to the bare 200-600?
pwpub wrote:
Not sure about this. I know from at least three other owners of the FE 400/2.8 who were really disappointed with the performance of the 2x TC. Maybe there is or was an issue with this particular combo.
From my experience with the 2x converter on the 70-200 GM II, 200-600 G, and 100-400 GM, sharpness and contrast at close range (up to 10m) are very good but drop off considerably the longer the distance. And Galer's 2x shots seem to be all at closer range. When comparing 140% (with t1.4x TC) to 200% enlargements against the 2x TC with the mentioned zooms, the latter will loose nearly always on distant targets, in addition to the light loss penalty.
So I would be interested to learn how the 300/2.8 & 2x TC combo performs in the distance.
In general I agree with you that distance performance takes a hit with the 2xTC, although that really also depends on the light you are shooting in.
The Canon 400DOII with the 2xTC did poorly in bright daylight in spring, but in favorable october autumn light it could really produce nice images at longer distance.
But as said, I agree with you, and don't see the 300+2xTC combo intended for longer distance shooting.
But the same goes for the 200-600G, that can keep up with the 600GM to an extent at closer distance, but is totally bested by the 600GM for distance shooting and cropping.
It's all about how you set your standards. The 300GM lens is an ultra high quality lens, that also has the latest Sony lens coatings which are really good at maintaing contrast in all sorts of light, so I will reserve judgement regarding performance with TC's for when I have used it.
berimbolo wrote:
How does the 400 with 1.4x compare to the bare 200-600?
It's not really even a fair contest. By 560mm, the zoom's faded out of its sweet spot and is at the slowest end of it's max aperture with its highest optical and natural vignetting. Even with the GM+1.4x wide open, it's already higher performing across the frame by a significant amount. Stop it down to f/4.5 to match the depth, and you gain quite a bit more.
pwpub wrote:
A lot of factors? I can actually think of only two: heat shimmering/distortion, poor/average lens sample (lens, converter, or worse - both). Both had no effect in my testings, which did cover a range of roughly 40-140 meters, AF and manually focused, aperture wide open or max. one stop closed, with 60MP sensor body.
Huh? 60MP on 600mm with TC2 and not affected by seeing across 140m? Were you testing indoors or at night?
ChrisMak wrote:
I would have preferred a Sony 400mm f4GM with this design approach, but it is not likely at all that Sony will ever make one, since it will not be sufficiently professional grade for them. I assume they design their GM lenses for the pros, and non-professional shooters that buy their A1's and GM lenses are probably merely a bonus for them, but certainly not a priority.
So the 300GM is the only option in GM territory to get you to 420/4 and 600/5.6 at all, but the low weight imakes it a real tempter.
Slightly off topic, but I always assumed that the long prime telephotos are designed to meet the requirements of pro sports shooters, but their business cases are built om the backs of amateur birders and wildlife folks. Can anyone confirm this?
Newenglandrocks wrote:
Slightly off topic, but I always assumed that the long prime telephotos are designed to meet the requirements of pro sports shooters, but their business cases are built om the backs of amateur birders and wildlife folks. Can anyone confirm this?
I don't know how many pro sports photogs there are. But if you go to Conowingo Dam in Maryland the next few weeks, you will be shocked to see how many people with those big primes shooting bald eagles.
Douglas L wrote:
I don't know how many pro sports photogs there are. But if you go to Conowingo Dam in Maryland the next few weeks, you will be shocked to see how many people with those big primes shooting bald eagles.
You have to use big primes at Conowingo. The birds are too far away and you need the shutter speed.
scrappydog wrote:
You have to use big primes at Conowingo. The birds are too far away and you need the shutter speed.
No kidding. I was there few days ago. We need 100 MP cameras and 1200mm lenses for Conowingo. Even at 840mm and 51MP most of the time I still need to crop a lot.
Andrew CD wrote:
@speedmaster20d@ , I’m really quite impressed that these images (and the swallow in the subsequent post) were all taken at 1200mm. And it’s also encouraging to hear that you don’t perceive the AF tracking to be noticeably (if that’s a reasonable word to use) worse.
My interest in this is that, having finally dragged myself off the fence and decided to upgrade my (original) A9 to an A1 (which I will pick up in London on Monday), I am keen to know how the 300/2.8 will perform with the 2x TC. Initially, I will spend time practicing and getting to know the A1 with my existing 200-600 but, at some point next year, I will likely buy a prime, to use for BIF. Although I appreciate that there is no real substitute for the 600/4, I am attracted to the 300/2.8 + 2x TC for hiking in the Scottish Highlands — but only if it is materially better than the 200-600 (without TC) at 600mm.
So I will be very interested to know how you find the 300 + 2x when you receive it. It seems quite plausible to me that the impact of the TC on sharpness and AF should be no worse (and may actually be less) than with the 600/4 — and it is clearly far from unacceptable with the 600. For an equivalent number of pixels on the sensor, I am hoping that it will actually be better, and a worthwhile improvement over the 200-600.
Meanwhile, if I may ask one question (more out of curiosity than anything else):
Do you happen to recall roughly how far away the duck in the final pair of images was? Given that there appears to be sufficient DoF to cover both the head and the wing, I presume that it must have been at least, say, 40-50m out (in which case I guess the first, uncropped(?) image might just, conceivably, be the whole frame — but with rather good panning!).
Thanks …. Andrew
Edit to add: @telyt@ ‘s images also look more than satisfactory to me, too....Show more →
Hi Andrew, thanks for your kind words.
the Northern shoveler was about 25-30 meters away across from a canal. the processed image has been cropped by a descent amount.
I view the 300 f/2.8 more as a compliment to the 2-6 and not so much as a substitute. the zoom is still needed in some cases where the flight distance can change dynamically, zooming back to "fit" the subject is not an option with the prime. The 300 is a good choice for shooting large birds especially when light is low like AK.
Douglas L wrote:
I don't know how many pro sports photogs there are. But if you go to Conowingo Dam in Maryland the next few weeks, you will be shocked to see how many people with those big primes shooting bald eagles.
From my conversation with manufactures, the prime target for 600mm lens are by far the wildlife photographers. Many of them are not professional, i.e. don't make money out of their photography. The professional sport photographers don't merely make as much money as the many highly compensated tech/medical/financial experts who happen to be in this hobby and pick up the latest and the greatest gear. apart from the very top or sponsored sports shooters most of them still shooting with the old DSLR and old lenses. I have seen as many as close to 100 latest and greatest 600 f/4 from the three brands shooting birds in one spot, if the partner is into photography then there is his and hers, double per family.
I've been there a few times and yes there were lots of big primes.
I talked to 20+ people there and none of them are professional wildlife photographers. There was one or two pro visits from time to time. Mark Smith was there a while ago.
It's really hard to make enough money for wildlife photography. As a hobby, it's not too bad to invest about 30k for the gears and then enjoy a few seasons of bird shooting. I think many people can afford that.
Douglas L wrote:
I don't know how many pro sports photogs there are. But if you go to Conowingo Dam in Maryland the next few weeks, you will be shocked to see how many people with those big primes shooting bald eagles.
speedmaster20d wrote:
Hi Andrew, thanks for your kind words.
the Northern shoveler was about 25-30 meters away across from a canal. the processed image has been cropped by a descent amount.
I view the 300 f/2.8 more as a compliment to the 2-6 and not so much as a substitute. the zoom is still needed in some cases where the flight distance can change dynamically, zooming back to "fit" the subject is not an option with the prime. The 300 is a good choice for shooting large birds especially when light is low like AK.
Thank you for taking the trouble to reply. What you say about the 300/2.8 makes complete sense to me.
Indeed, very impressive performance with the 2x. As is the price for that combo. On the other hand you save a lot vs the 600/4 GM by just giving up a full stop of light. Definitely a lens on my wish list.
bartr wrote:
This Chinese review has a lot of 2x TC examples: at the 6:00, 12:35 and 13:25 marks.
Maybe it's a bit of a misnomer, but almost all of the sports guys I know who shoot sports professionally, from AP to USA Today to other wire services and magazines, all shoot other subjects. The AP guy I know loves birds and wildlife. I don't know any who shoot exclusively sports. I'm sure there are some out there, but I'd venture the vast majority just like photography and may even do sports as more of a side job than their true passion. So, I would not be surprised at all to see lots of "sports" guys shooting the eagles. I know I would if I was closer.
Douglas L wrote:
I don't know how many pro sports photogs there are. But if you go to Conowingo Dam in Maryland the next few weeks, you will be shocked to see how many people with those big primes shooting bald eagles.
A bit off topic maybe, but still relevant, Canon rumors has news that the 400DOII (a lens that I had for a few years) will be brought to the RF system with a completely new design:
It may be possible that Canon achieves weight reduction and makes this lens with a weight not far from the 300GM. It worked extremely well with TC's.
Moreover, Canon seems to have intentions to shake the lens market up further with a 600/4DO lens:
Many years ago, Canon did show off an EF 600mm f/4 DO IS USM prototype that never came to market, but we have received some hints that Canon does have a 600mm DO lens in the pipeline, but not before the RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is announced.
