500mm to 600mm is a 1.2x crop.
On A1 for example that'll net you a 35mp image.
Now if you downsize the image from 300mm+2x to 35mp will it look just as sharp?
Xraypaul wrote:
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 ....Show more →
I agree with most of this. I am thinking along the same lines.
I am not going to wait around for new lenses on Sony. I will also never own a 400mm f2.8 or 600mm f4.
The 300GM is very much stretching my budget limits. And while I'm no fan of running a second Nikon system, for price of 300GM, I can almost pick up Z8+400mm f4.5. that'll also give me a second body which is useful.... Not to mention higher frame rate and blackout free shooting than my A7RV.
So monetary wise sigma 500/5.6 makes a lot of sense.
I don't know what to do.....
I'll continue shooting with the 200-600mm till I can make up my mind lol
Andrew CD wrote:
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.
lightskyland wrote:
I can't imagine why people would want the PF lenses when Sony releases lenses that are just as light without the bokeh-destroying PF elements.
Sony just needs a few more telephotos in its arsenal (and to unleash third parties from the archaic 15FPS limitation and TC restriction).
Was this shot with a PF lens, which one ? the bokeh balls are terrible.
Xraypaul wrote:
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 ....Show more →
I'd caveat that Nikon comment with "if you're OK with slower lenses". A lot of will never buy a lens that starts at f/6.3. ZERO appeal for me no matter who would make it or how light it is. When I am shooting for reach, I want the absolute best IQ and when I use a TC I don't want to be stuck at f/13 to start.
Otherwise on the classic telephotos (600/4 and 400/2.8) the only "plus" is a built-in TC, which I'm not sold on either. I almost have a TC on my long lenses anyway, and with the 600 it's the 2x, so I'd just be carrying around the extra bulk of a built-in 1.4x most of the time without using it.
In my case as mentioned because it's a fair bit cheaper.
lightskyland wrote:
I can't imagine why people would want the PF lenses when Sony releases lenses that are just as light without the bokeh-destroying PF elements.
Sony just needs a few more telephotos in its arsenal (and to unleash third parties from the archaic 15FPS limitation and TC restriction).
_MacTwin_ wrote:
best shots done on tripod with remote shutter and ES
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
Certainly looks convincing. Doesn't seem in line with what others have shown, though. Could simply be copy variation, but hard to say. Anyway, with some luck I'll be able do test it myself next week.
docusync wrote:
If you post this on the Nikon forum you can be killed by certain aggressive individuals
oh you can't imagine on an Italian forum what a gang of Taliban has formed on that brand, unfortunately fanatics are present for every brand (people with obvious personal problems who haven't understood what photography is at all), strangely on Nikon, at least in Italy, the phenomenon is really serious.
Fortunately, not everyone is like that.
In any case I agree about the limitations of diffractive optics, the problem of onions and loss of contrast in some conditions is in my opinion a huge limitation.
Seeing Sigma and Sony the need for the use of diffractive lenses loses its sense of existence a bit, the sigma weighs practically as much as the Nikon is short but uses refractive lenses, the 300gm allows for a very light 600f5.6 but capable of starting precisely at 300..
As far as I'm concerned I don't understand at all optics like the 500 or 600 pf when exceptional zooms are available (of course I'm speaking for me not in general), while I find the 800pf really interesting, although I would prefer at this point an optic made like the sigma with refracted lenses, and especially with linear motor(s) and not stepmotor.
Nikon is also to be applauded for offering superteles with built-in tc (if the 300gm had it it would be just perfect), and the z8 is also to be applauded for its price.
Daran wrote:
Certainly looks convincing. Doesn't seem in line with what others have shown, though. Could simply be copy variation, but hard to say. Anyway, with some luck I'll be able do test it myself next week.
As said I think the variability is on the TCs not so much on the 300GM, I hope of course yours are free of defects, I also await your evidence
_MacTwin_ wrote:
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..
https://dustinabbott.net/2024/02/sigma-500mm-f5-6-dn-os-sport-review/ the difference here looks noticable but then the 500 is not cropped to 600mm ,but way more contrast and sharp across the frame most noticeable mid frame where the 200-600 suffers a bit ,the 200-600 centre is very good and does not yield much in sharpness to even the primes if we are honest ,
Xraypaul wrote: https://dustinabbott.net/2024/02/sigma-500mm-f5-6-dn-os-sport-review/ the difference here looks noticable but then the 500 is not cropped to 600mm ,but way more contrast and sharp across the frame most noticeable mid frame where the 200-600 suffers a bit ,the 200-600 centre is very good and does not yield much in sharpness to even the primes if we are honest ,
To me it looks like he missed focus with his 200-600. I have one and two of my friends that I regularly shoot with do as well, and I've never seen it look that soft when pixel-peeping fine bird feather details. The give-away is the center of frame performance; the 200-600 is quite good there, but does degrade as you move towards the corners. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the Sigma is sharper but I don't think this is an accurate showing of a typical 200-600.
This morning I spent a hour in my back yard blind set up by the bird bath, using the 300 GM + 2x TC.
My initial pixel-peeping observation is that this combination at full aperture (effectively f/5.6) doesn't quite match the 600 GM on a per-pixel level but it's close. The advantage is the MFD so I can work closer and get more pixels on the bird.
I traded the 100-400 GM for this lens; I rarely used the 100-400 at any focal length shorter than 300mm and I wasn't satisfied with the 100-400 with 1.4x TC (effectively 600mm) where I had to stop it down to f/11 or smaller for adequate image quality.
Regarding the 300 GM + 2x TC, my conclusion is two thumbs up.
telyt wrote:
This morning I spent a hour in my back yard blind set up by the bird bath, using the 300 GM + 2x TC.
My initial pixel-peeping observation is that this combination at full aperture (effectively f/5.6) doesn't quite match the 600 GM on a per-pixel level but it's close. The advantage is the MFD so I can work closer and get more pixels on the bird.
I traded the 100-400 GM for this lens; I rarely used the 100-400 at any focal length shorter than 300mm and I wasn't satisfied with the 100-400 with 1.4x TC (effectively 600mm) where I had to stop it down to f/11 or smaller for adequate image quality.
Regarding the 300 GM + 2x TC, my conclusion is two thumbs up....Show more →
This is exactly my conclusion as well. The optical performance with the 2x TC is very close to what I get with the bare 600 for practical purposes (like making prints or posting online) and the focusing performance is excellent so little to no real penalty from the 2x. It will replace the 400GM as my carry-over-the-shoulder kit when I'm hiking. Sooooo much lighter and more compact.
I think it makes little sense to ask this question.
Each lens has its pros and cons, if for some the 600mm is cumbersome in 80% of situations, the photos you take do not benefit from the bokeh, you never go beyond 600mm...well yes, perhaps it is worth doing the exchange.
On the contrary, if the percentage of situations are in favor of 600gm for your own use... it is clearly better to keep that one.
Everyone knows which configuration is best suited to their purposes, it certainly shouldn't be a little more or less detail when looking at 200% on a monitor that makes you choose one lens over another.
My 2X teleconverter arrived yesterday and I was able to try it out on the 300/2.8 this morning for a few minutes before the weather got bad again. My goal was to test the sharpness of this combination and when the focus is accurate (the A1 bird eye AF seems to hit the body more than the eye), the sharpness is as good as I could wish for with a 2X. Below is a full image and a crop of the same image.
I've also been experimenting with 300mm f2.8 GM and 2x teleconverter and have reached the same conclusion as some others that this combination has the potential to be extremely sharp, even biting sharp under the right conditions (good light, lower ISO, accurate focus, etc.). Today I compared it with my 200-600 and my initial conclusion is that my copy of the 200-600 never gets quite as sharp even in the center as the 300mm 2.8 GM with the 2x. I've tried with both static and moving subjects, near and far, and this is what I am finding. I love the versatility of the zoom, but I can't see many situations when I'd want to carry both, so the zoom will likely go. I also have the 100-400mm GM. The main advantage of the 100-400 (other than the zoom range) is the MFD. However, the MFD of the 300 GM with the 2x teleconverter is similar. Therefore, I'm tempted to sell the 100-400 as well. The trade-off is having to take teleconverters on and off.
As for the 600 GM, I wish I owned it and I can see a reason to have both the 300 GM and 600 GM due to f4 vs f5.6 and the ability to extend the reach of the 600 GM. However, in my case, I'm a little more torn as I have the 500 f4 II Canon and so I'm not sure whether there is enough difference between a 600 5.6 and a 700 5.6 (500 + 1.4x) to make it worth lugging around the 500 f4 II + 1.4x with less flexibility with handholding than the 300 2.8 + 2x combo. The 500mm F4 II with 2x isn't that sharp and so I'm not including the 1000mm option. I guess I could sell this too and I'll end up ahead financially having bought the 300 GM .
On the other hand, I could carry both the 300 2.8 GM and the 500 F4 with 1.4x with cameras attached to each and have a choice of two useful focal lengths with top quality.
jhapeman wrote:
This is exactly my conclusion as well. The optical performance with the 2x TC is very close to what I get with the bare 600 for practical purposes (like making prints or posting online) and the focusing performance is excellent so little to no real penalty from the 2x. It will replace the 400GM as my carry-over-the-shoulder kit when I'm hiking. Sooooo much lighter and more compact.
If I do end up purchasing the 300GM, I will keep my 600GM and sell the 400GM. I'd actually like all 3 but I'd rather keep the gear decisions on a daily basis to a minimum. I've had phases where I owned way too many lenses and you spend more time deciding what to mount then you do shooting
. 