I was late to order mine but it has shipped and will be in my hands by this Wednesday.
I will definitely keep the 600GM and 400GM. I like the 400 for larger mammals in lower light and actually for scenic shots. There is more than just birds out there guys.
Lt.Deadeye wrote:
So not good enough to replace the 600.
At f/5.6 or smaller, and where using a TC to get past 600mm isn't required it certainly can replace the 600 GM. The differences in image quality aren't worth quibbling over.
I'm not selling the 600 GM, because I do sometimes want to use f/4 and/or use a TC. It's also handy to have both available when the 600 is on a tripod dedicated to a particular image or animal, and the 300 (with TC or not) with a second body is ready to use hand-held for something that may show up nearby unexpectedly.
arbitrage wrote:
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
Would also be interesting to see how 400mm/4.5+1.4 compares with 300GM+2x Jemini wrote:
Ok. Please let's know ur opinion if u do get chance to play. Your opinion is very valuable for people like me.
I know A1+300+1.4 is better than Z8+400/4.5. But by how much? Very curious. Thank you
full image, a1, 300 GM + 2x TC, ISO 1000, ss 1/1000 sec, f/5.6, hand-held, no noise reduction
un-resized crop of head
the fence post the bird is perched on showing potential for bright line bokeh in foreground specular highlights
this is the only optical drawback I've found so far
telyt wrote:
the fence post the bird is perched on showing potential for bright line bokeh in foreground specular highlights
this is the only optical drawback I've found so far
Nothing so noticeable or problematic given the need for 100% vision, with the use of TC anyway I think it is quite normal.
On the rest....beh having it I immediately realized the incredible rendition and sharpness, but not in absolute terms because clearly there are hyper sharp superteles, what astounded me was just the quality with TCs, really impressive.
One of the issues that I have encountered with telephoto lenses is the lack of resolution with distance from the camera. This morning, conditions were good to see how well the 300/2.8 with 2.0x teleconverter performs at distance. I set up the camera on a tripod and set the timer to 2 sec. I did not want to introduce camera shake from handholding so that I could get the best resolution possible for this quick test. Even using this method, there were some images that were not as sharp as others. Of course, being that this is a mountain situation, atmospheric conditions change and there could have been ice particles in the air that I could not see.
Anyway, I am happy to report that this lens, even with the 2.0X teleconverter, performs remarkably well at distance. The mountain that I shot is in the range of four to five miles away. I will post the unedited image at full frame, an edited image at full frame (including sharpening and noise reduction), and a severe crop of the edited image.
One shot this afternoon with the 300/2.8 & 2.0x teleconverter. Fringing around the bird was the only problem and I attempted to tackle that in PS. Looks like saving to a lower resolution can cause more of it, but hopefully this is not too bad. Saving at full resolution looks fine, but that is too large to post here.
Abuttolph wrote:
One shot this afternoon with the 300/2.8 & 2.0x teleconverter. Fringing around the bird was the only problem and I attempted to tackle that in PS. Looks like saving to a lower resolution can cause more of it, but hopefully this is not too bad. Saving at full resolution looks fine, but that is too large to post here.
that incredibly sharp for a 2x...come on...it's alchemy.
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 ,
so do you think the 300gm+2x is still worth it over the sigma 500mm 5.6? does the sigma even work with any 1.4x?
Abuttolph wrote:
Sure seems like it - I think that I have the Goldilocks pair with this lens and 2x tc.
Nah, it's just that some people get caught up in dissecting a lens for utter perfection, when the reality is that with the size things are printed or posted on the Internet, that level of optical perfection is really academic.
pointbob wrote:
so do you think the 300gm+2x is still worth it over the sigma 500mm 5.6? does the sigma even work with any 1.4x?
over twice the price has me doubting ,but the option of 3 lenses use keeps me interested ,for now i am happy with my 500mm sigma ,but once you start using that 2x you know the lens is never going to be optimized although it fairs quite well we know where x2 convertors go they just always leave me with doubt although i have never used the sony x2 so really guessing
jhapeman wrote:
Nah, it's just that some people get caught up in dissecting a lens for utter perfection, when the reality is that with the size things are printed or posted on the Internet, that level of optical perfection is really academic.
Yes, of course no one ever prints big from crops and no one ever gets any real benefit from good optics. /sarcasm
One good reason to spend the extra for the 300 2.8GM and 2x TC .. speed! the Sigma has the unfortunate 15FPS limitation. I want 30FPS for my A1, which is one of several reasons I purchased that camera . Sony desperately needs a mid range lightweight prime in the 500-600mm range that has fast linear AF motors , and can take Teleconverters. Sony, wake up!!
Xraypaul wrote:
over twice the price has me doubting ,but the option of 3 lenses use keeps me interested ,for now i am happy with my 500mm sigma ,but once you start using that 2x you know the lens is never going to be optimized although it fairs quite well we know where x2 convertors go they just always leave me with doubt although i have never used the sony x2 so really guessing
