As I told the sharpness is incredible even with 2x!
The difference with 600gm is just outside the center, some little AC that causes loss of contrast (but is also recoverable), and we are talking about 100%crop.....which is not about photography but about the passion for microscopes.
Very little....little...and I say little, difference with 400GM.
Obviously lenses have a different aperture and purpose, but equally obviously they have a different weight, bulk, and cost.
Compared to my tests I see little difference with other optics, I don't know if it depends on small differences in TCs performance, but in my case the 300+2x is definitely better than the 200-600, and some other optics, for example with the 1.4x it is clearly better defined than the 100-400, and not by a little....
I have the impression that he has a not-quite-perfect specimen....
Hello all. Just got the 300mm and super excited to start shooting with my A7R5.
Later this year heading to east Africa for safari, great migration, and Uganda. I have a Gura Gear City Commuter 18L backpack that I love that fits all my gear - with exception of the 300mm and my backup body (A7Rii). Any recommendations for a separate bag just for an alpha body, 300mm, and TC attached (with lens hood reversed for storage)? Looking for the smallest possible bag just for this combo. Thanks!
anotherhobby wrote:
Hello all. Just got the 300mm and super excited to start shooting with my A7R5.
Later this year heading to east Africa for safari, great migration, and Uganda. I have a Gura Gear City Commuter 18L backpack that I love that fits all my gear - with exception of the 300mm and my backup body (A7Rii). Any recommendations for a separate bag just for an alpha body, 300mm, and TC attached (with lens hood reversed for storage)? Looking for the smallest possible bag just for this combo. Thanks!
Among the various backpacks I have owned none compares to the kiboko, for me there is no other (in fact I have taken two), you can choose the size but honestly I think the 30L is always the preferable one, it fits the world and weighs very little, perfect for airplane carry-on.
_MacTwin_ wrote:
The difference with 600gm is just outside the center, some little AC that causes loss of contrast (but is also recoverable), and we are talking about 100%crop.....which is not about photography but about the passion for microscopes.
I disagree.
I have a hard time seeing a worthwhile improvement in the IQ of the 300GM&TC2 vs the 200-600 in those TDP crops. The aberrations of the TCs on the short prime seem *very* similar to what happens on the longer primes. While per pixel it is a tad better when using the same TC on both primes, the TC2 on the short prime seems worse everywhere compared to the 600GM with the TC1.4, which is of course quite a step down from either prime without TC.
Anyway, that is what I see in these crops. TCs still do what they do. That said, I have use for a "shorter" prime and am quite tempted by this little gem.
I have a hard time seeing a worthwhile improvement in the IQ of the 300GM&TC2 vs the 200-600 in those TDP crops. The aberrations of the TCs on the short prime seem *very* similar to what happens on the longer primes. While per pixel it is a tad better when using the same TC on both primes, the TC2 on the short prime seems worse everywhere compared to the 600GM with the TC1.4, which is of course quite a step down from either prime without TC.
Anyway, that is what I see in these crops. TCs still do what they do. That said, I have use for a "shorter" prime and am quite tempted by this little gem....Show more →
You have every right to disagree, but I talk about what I have in my hand and verify.
The difference with the 200-600 is absolutely obvious as it is with the 100-400, tests done on sights a few yards away matter relatively to me for what I do and in any case even those to me bring the same result.
Especially at the edges the difference is quite obvious!
best shots done on tripod with remote shutter and ES
200-600
https://i.postimg.cc/wv453dPj/200-600.jpg
300+2x
https://i.postimg.cc/qMHRH5Df/300-2x.jpg
My tests tell me something different from what I see on TDP and some prejudices of those who probably think it can degrade the 600gm
Here the files, if someone need I can put the raw, but if needed I can make other with 100-400gm, I have not the 600gm here to make same test, but I'm sure at 200% it offers even more quality....but I honestly don't think it changes much in real use.
As I said the real differences lie elsewhere, in bokeh, in the ability to go beyond 600mm...not in pixelpeeping definition.
If I look at the TDP tests the differences between 200-600 and 600gm are already moderate, so ....seeing those that come out between the zoom and the 300....it takes little to get an idea...
The DIgital Picture comparisons are made with lens corrections disabled. This is useful to a degree in that it tells you something about the quality of the lens but all the images we make are made with lens corrections. It could well be that one lens has easily corrected defects whilst another does not. An example would be where one lens has transverse chromatic abberations (easily corrected) whilst another has logitudinal CA (v. hard to correct). Lot s of other causes for loss of sharpness may vary in how easily they are corrected.
So, everybody may be right! What matters to me is what the images look like when they have been processed with lens corrections.
By the way, using lens correction profiles for other lenses doesn't seem like a particularly sensible thing to do.
Looks like there's sample variation in play. And in case of 300+2x you are contending sample variation in the lens and in the TC.
Now I am just wondering how 300mm+2x compares against sigma 500mm f5.6 which many folks saying is "optically perfect". If its considerably sharper, then we might be better off with croping. Of course you lose out on 300mm f2.8 and 420mm f4.
Previously I was debating wether to move to Nikon (Z8+400mmPF) or stay on Sony.... these two lenses have convinced me to stay with Sony but which one?
nandbytes wrote:
Looks like there's sample variation in play. And in case of 300+2x you are contending sample variation in the lens and in the TC.
Now I am just wondering how 300mm+2x compares against sigma 500mm f5.6 which many folks saying is "optically perfect". If its considerably sharper, then we might be better off with croping. Of course you lose out on 300mm f2.8 and 420mm f4.
Previously I was debating wether to move to Nikon (Z8+400mmPF) or stay on Sony.... these two lenses have convinced me to stay with Sony but which one?
Each to their own but for me:
500mm is too short and no teleconverters
Minimum focus distance @ 3.2m is too long
15 fps is too slow
I want a bigger lens than 95mm dia of 500 f/5.6 or 600mm f/6.3
500mm is too short and no teleconverters
Minimum focus distance @ 3.2m is too long
15 fps is too slow
I want a bigger lens than 95mm dia of 500 f/5.6 or 600mm f/6.3
Yeah lack of TC support does make it less attractive to me too.
my camera only shoots at 10fps max anyway, even if I were to get the next version of A1 15fps is good enough for me.
Minimum focus distance isn't ideal but I also have 70-200mm f4 G2 which is great for this.
not sure why anyone wants a bigger lens! if can have a pancake 600mm f4 with same IQ I'd take that!
somersettr wrote:
The DIgital Picture comparisons are made with lens corrections disabled. This is useful to a degree in that it tells you something about the quality of the lens but all the images we make are made with lens corrections. It could well be that one lens has easily corrected defects whilst another does not. An example would be where one lens has transverse chromatic abberations (easily corrected) whilst another has logitudinal CA (v. hard to correct). Lot s of other causes for loss of sharpness may vary in how easily they are corrected.
So, everybody may be right! What matters to me is what the images look like when they have been processed with lens corrections.
By the way, using lens correction profiles for other lenses doesn't seem like a particularly sensible thing to do....Show more →
there is still no correction profile for the 300 (even there is no fw update on my A1), and in any case I don't apply it, the results are that.
As said if needed I publish RAW (100mb) or DNG compressed by ADC.
I doubt it is much variability between 300mm specimens, I am more inclined to think the variability is in the TCs.
On the 200-600 I found some on one specimen (I have one and 2 others at the agency) that I sent back for a better one, the others are almost identical, there are very small variations but where one sins in one area it does better in another, however things perceptible only at 200%.
nandbytes wrote:
Looks like there's sample variation in play. And in case of 300+2x you are contending sample variation in the lens and in the TC.
Now I am just wondering how 300mm+2x compares against sigma 500mm f5.6 which many folks saying is "optically perfect". If its considerably sharper, then we might be better off with croping. Of course you lose out on 300mm f2.8 and 420mm f4.
Previously I was debating wether to move to Nikon (Z8+400mmPF) or stay on Sony.... these two lenses have convinced me to stay with Sony but which one?
without a real comparison they remain hypotheses, if you look at the comparison between 200-600 and sigma 500 made by Northrup the sigma appears more defined, but Tony himself states that the differences are not that high.
So I would be forgiven for thinking that they are more or less similar with the 300+tc...only the sony has 100mm more...it can be used at 300, at 400...and it is definitely better made..
nandbytes wrote:
Yeah lack of TC support does make it less attractive to me too.
my camera only shoots at 10fps max anyway, even if I were to get the next version of A1 15fps is good enough for me.
Minimum focus distance isn't ideal but I also have 70-200mm f4 G2 which is great for this.
not sure why anyone wants a bigger lens! if can have a pancake 600mm f4 with same IQ I'd take that!
Larger diameter lens = more light, less noise, better subject isolation, better bokeh
I gave up on m43 basically because they didn't have any bigger lenses. I left before the 150-400 PRO came out but even that has an entrance pupil of 89mm vs 95 for the 200-600. So the images from the two lenses are very similar. 600 f/5.6 gets you to 107mm. A 500mm f/4 to 125mm which would be nice but pricey. And of course the 600 f/4 gets you to 150mm. The size (short but large-ish diameter) and weight of the 300mm f/2.8 along with the close minimum focus distance make it a very interesting proposition given the performance with the 2x TC.
Size is everything and there's no getting around it!
nandbytes wrote:
Previously I was debating wether to move to Nikon (Z8+400mmPF) or stay on Sony.... these two lenses have convinced me to stay with Sony but which one?
Neither is a bad choice, but for myself the 300 GMaster's advantages of closer MFD and 300/2.8 + 420 f/4 + 600/5.6 versatility are the deciding factors.
Having given this quite a bit of thought I have, for once, managed to drag myself off the fence and ordered the 300/2.8. (I already have both TCs.) Should be here tomorrow. Fingers crossed for some sunshine at the weekend!
The alternatives I considered were:
1. Do nothing, wait to see if Sony release PF-type lenses. Too boring. A bird on the SD card is worth two in the future.
2. 600/4. Have been tempted by this for years but, for hiking in the Scottish Highlands, the weight (and size) of the 300/2.8 is too good to ignore (even relative to the 200-600).
3. Sigma 500/5.6. Quite tempting ( @ChrisMak made good comments about this), but I’m just not happy to be limited to 500mm and 15 FPS.
4. Z8 + 600PF + 1.4xTC. I just don’t want to run a third system (I’ve got too many other Sony and CV E-mount lenses that I’m very happy with).
In the end, the images from @jhapeman, @Alex Phan and @arbitrage were pretty compelling. Also, although I will undoubtedly use it with the 2xTC quite a lot of the time, there are also occasions when 420mm will be very useful to me (not least, for photographing deer in the Highlands). And, finally, now that I’ve got an A1, I’m less concerned, at least for the time being, about not having an option to go longer than 600mm (I just don’t think a TC with my 200-600 is that great). Based on all I’ve seen, I’m pretty confident that I’ll be very happy with the A1 + 300/2.8 combo.
1.well sony can make lightweight lenses with out pf glass and caveats,
2.600mm is the ultimate for birding iq
3.i have ordered the sigma 500mm 5.6 it ticks the lighweight and sharp boxes but sonys insistance on crippling 3rd party lenses is anoying ,
4. nikon have the wildlife upper hand with their telephotos .
well judging by images the 300mm bare lens is superb with out caveats ,with 1.4 also superb ,but with 2.0x just very good ,the 200-600mm matches the sharpness in centre and the 500mm sigma will be better and across the frame ,than either the 300mm with 2x or 200-600mm .
