I have been on the fence with this lens, because I think I'd want to be shooting it at F/2.8 most of the time to get my money's worth. If I was going to only use it with the TC all the time, I'd probably just buy a 400 4.5 and Z8. Both of those lightly used basically match the price of the 300/2.8.
On the other hand the performance with the 2x shown in the video bartr posted is far more impressive than I would expect. While it is versatile, the 200-600 is one of my least favorite lenses because the OIS with it on the A7RV is so subpar compared to other combinations I've tried. So a 300 could be a viable alternative to the zoom assuming better OIS and stabilization, and it being lighter, I'd probably go for the prime most of the time.
The rumor of the 400/4 RF is interesting but with the 400 4.5 Nikkor Z at its "competitively low" price point I have to wonder how it would be priced given the 400 DO II is almost $7K
I think the real question I would have about the TC use on this is how it compares to cropping. What I've observed on other systems/lenses is that a 2X doesn't actually resolve any more detail than the 1.4X cropped image. If it actually yields more detail and doesn't degrade AF by a large margin then maybe it's worth it.
Bobby V wrote:
I think the real question I would have about the TC use on this is how it compares to cropping. What I've observed on other systems/lenses is that a 2X doesn't actually resolve any more detail than the 1.4X cropped image. If it actually yields more detail and doesn't degrade AF by a large margin then maybe it's worth it.
One thing cropping doesn't do is increase the number of pixels in the photo; several stock agencies have minimum pixel requirements.
Bobby V wrote:
I don't get it. Couldn't you simply upscale the image and call it a day?
If upscaling or cropping results in a better image than using a TC, I guess all the knowledgeable photographers have wasted their money buying and using TC’s.
Bobby V wrote:
I think the real question I would have about the TC use on this is how it compares to cropping. What I've observed on other systems/lenses is that a 2X doesn't actually resolve any more detail than the 1.4X cropped image. If it actually yields more detail and doesn't degrade AF by a large margin then maybe it's worth it.
Imagemaster wrote:
If upscaling or cropping results in a better image than using a TC, I guess all the knowledgeable photographers have wasted their money buying and using TC’s.
You're taking my comment out of context, as usual. The comment was about if the detail in a cropped image vs the same as one taken with a 2X TC in the context of stock imagery.
As for 2X TC use, the questionable utility is not a profound concept. There are many examples out there demonstrating that a 2X TC doesn't really get you any significant increase in reach compared to say a cropped 1.4X image. It also has a major hit on AF consistency and of course light gathering and so yes, for a lot of people who have bought 2X TCs they end up rarely ever using them. There are other benefits like an increase in magnification and sometimes very minor improvement in detail under very controlled conditions, but the juice is not usually worth the squeeze in my experience (and many others)
In summary I wouldn't personally buy a 300/2.8 thinking I was going to use it with the 2X TC most of the time
Bobby V wrote:
You're taking my comment out of context, as usual. The comment was about if the detail in a cropped image vs the same as one taken with a 2X TC in the context of stock imagery.
As for 2X TC use, the questionable utility is not a profound concept. There are many examples out there demonstrating that a 2X TC doesn't really get you any significant increase in reach compared to say a cropped 1.4X image. It also has a major hit on AF consistency and of course light gathering and so yes, for a lot of people who have bought 2X TCs they end up rarely ever using them. There are other benefits like an increase in magnification and sometimes very minor improvement in detail under very controlled conditions, but the juice is not usually worth the squeeze in my experience (and many others)
In summary I wouldn't personally buy a 300/2.8 thinking I was going to use it with the 2X TC most of the time...Show more →
+1 for the TC 2x results vs cropped - when I tried the 2x on the 70-200GMII (@200mm, on the A7RIII), there was some degradation and I was getting sharper/better results with the 1.4x cropped. Maybe I didn't tried the best sample of 2x. And the 70-200GMII as good as it is, is not a prime GM lens.
The TC 2x might be useful on a lower resolution body though.
Since we are discussing Nikon here and I know many of us are ex or current Nikon/Sony users...
I think for the price of 300/2.8 plus 2 TCs (with tax and price for new lens), you can get a Z8 and 400/4.5. I have the combo and the VR is way better than Sony A1 and 200-600. For anything other than BIF with busy background I prefer Nikon setup. Z identifies many birds that A1 doesn't. (I'm sure A7RV is better)
Bobby V wrote:
You're taking my comment out of context, as usual. The comment was about if the detail in a cropped image vs the same as one taken with a 2X TC in the context of stock imagery.
As for 2X TC use, the questionable utility is not a profound concept. There are many examples out there demonstrating that a 2X TC doesn't really get you any significant increase in reach compared to say a cropped 1.4X image. It also has a major hit on AF consistency and of course light gathering and so yes, for a lot of people who have bought 2X TCs they end up rarely ever using them. There are other benefits like an increase in magnification and sometimes very minor improvement in detail under very controlled conditions, but the juice is not usually worth the squeeze in my experience (and many others)
In summary I wouldn't personally buy a 300/2.8 thinking I was going to use it with the 2X TC most of the time...Show more →
Isn't a bit of context necessary here?
It is more or less common knowledge that 2XTc's
should not be used on lenses slower than f2.8 and then only prime lenses.
This is what birders used to say: 2XTC for the 400mm f2.8 only, 1.4TC for the 500mm and 600mm f4 lenses.
I don't think there is much value in saying a 2XTC degrades IQ or AF without taking the combo with the lens into consideration.
I am inclined to reserve my opinion on whether it makes sense to buy a 300GM if I only intend to use it with converters, until I see the reviews for results. Mark Smith is working on a video about the 300GM and both converters. It may be a sign that it is worth reporting on as he is a serious guy.
Jemini wrote:
Since we are discussing Nikon here and I know many of us are ex or current Nikon/Sony users...
I think for the price of 300/2.8 plus 2 TCs (with tax and price for new lens), you can get a Z8 and 400/4.5. I have the combo and the VR is way better than Sony A1 and 200-600. For anything other than BIF with busy background I prefer Nikon setup. Z identifies many birds that A1 doesn't. (I'm sure A7RV is better)
I just got the Z8 and 400 f4.5. I was looking for a lightweight and smaller alternative to the A1 and 200-600 which I will keep. I also got the 1.4TC which works very well with the 400 and gets me to 560 at f6.3 while retaining excellent IQ. Weight of the Sony is 1470gm vs 1245gm for the Nikon. I have been looking for a light 500pf type lens with Sony for a while and finally found one at Nikon.
With TC added to the Z, won't the weight for (Sony a1 + 200-600) = (z8 + 400mm f/4.5 + 1.4xTC)?
Not knocking the z 400 - it seems like an incredible lens - light, sharp and produces beautiful images.
But so is the 200-600 (except not light) and it has a lot more focal lengths.
And the a1's AF is (in my first-hand-experience) much better and simpler to use than anything z.
saaketham wrote:
With TC added to the Z, won't the weight for (Sony a1 + 200-600) = (z8 + 400PF + 1.4xTC)?
Not knocking the 400PF - it seems like an incredible lens - light, sharp and produces beautiful images.
But so is the 200-600 (except not light) and it has a lot more focal lengths.
And the a1's AF is (in my first-hand-experience) much better and simpler to use than anything z.
I think z8+400pf+1.4 is about the same as the 200-600mm alone
I considered getting this combo for a lighter package. But I recently bought the 200-600mm that I’m using on the a7RV and I really love it so far (besides the weight) , sharpness and rendering are great, even at 600mm f/6.3; and as you said, we are getting the flexibility of more focal lengths.
ChrisMak wrote:
Isn't a bit of context necessary here?
It is more or less common knowledge that 2XTc's
should not be used on lenses slower than f2.8 and then only prime lenses.
This is what birders used to say: 2XTC for the 400mm f2.8 only, 1.4TC for the 500mm and 600mm f4 lenses.
I don't think there is much value in saying a 2XTC degrades IQ or AF without taking the combo with the lens into consideration.
I am inclined to reserve my opinion on whether it makes sense to buy a 300GM if I only intend to use it with converters, until I see the reviews for results. Mark Smith is working on a video about the 300GM and both converters. It may be a sign that it is worth reporting on as he is a serious guy. ...Show more →
Yes I agree we should reserve judgement until we see actual results, which was what I wrote on my second post on this thread. However I have yet to see an example where image quality and AF performance with a 2X doesn't take a significant hit even on an exotic tele so I remain doubtful
berimbolo wrote:
I don't think the Nikon 400 F4.5 is a PF lens. This is an important distinction as some PF lenses produce ugly bokeh
Yes, they do This is with 800PF
It's not that some PF lenses produces ugly bokeh. All PF/DO lenses produce ugly bokeh in some situations. I've been shooting with PF lenses since 2019. I haven't got a single image with issue. I heard it's mostly for surfing kind of situations that happens. Not sure
ChrisMak wrote:
Isn't a bit of context necessary here?
It is more or less common knowledge that 2XTc's
should not be used on lenses slower than f2.8 and then only prime lenses.
This is what birders used to say: 2XTC for the 400mm f2.8 only, 1.4TC for the 500mm and 600mm f4 lenses.
I don't think there is much value in saying a 2XTC degrades IQ or AF without taking the combo with the lens into consideration.
A lot of BS being thrown around on this thread. There are no rules or laws that each individual photographer has to obey regarding TC's. Who cares what some birders say, and 2XTc's should not be used on lenses slower than f2.8 and then only prime lenses. is just ridiculous.
Each individual is free to use TC's on any lens they wish, and they are free to use TC's, cropping, or any other method to get the final image that THEY WANT .
Sure, someone using a 400 f2.8, 600 f4, or 800 f5.6, with or without TC's, could get a lot better result. So what? What do I care? There are many reasons why myself or others do not wish to even own or use those lenses.
So go shoot with whatever you want, and forget about the preaching of the 'must use X camera or Y lens' crowd.
Canon EOS R6m2RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens1000mmf/16.01/2000s2500 ISO+1.0 EV
crop of above
Canon EOS R6m2RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens1000mmf/16.01/2000s2500 ISO+1.0 EV
