Douglas L wrote:
I just watched the video from Alex Fung from Hong Kong, he tried the 1.4 TC and the 2X TC on the 300 GM. He said with the 1.4xTC the AF and image quality showed very little degradation from 300 f2.8, with the 2XTC it was still very good. He said the 300 GM took TC better than any big lenses he tried. He pointed out that with either TC it took the camera a little longer to "activate" AF, maybe a FW issue.
I am hoping he will soon do a direct 300 GM+2XTC vs 200-600 comparison at 600mm. The video is in Cantonese.
Thanks for posting.
His findings about performance with tc's are in line with other previews, nice to hear!
My wish for this lens with TC's is a high quality portable combo for walkaround use to complement the 600GM. I don't intend to use it in scenarios that would stress AF performance.
Initially I disliked the idea of having to use TC's opposed to having a solution like the Nikon 600PF, but having a 420mm f4 option is really very nice for shooting in forested areas. A max. aperture of f6.3 is very limiting.
The 300mm option is nice for landscape or contextual shots.
A bonus is the f5.6 aperture at 600mm, opposed to the standard of f6.3 for non-exotic telelenses.
This is all moot of course if performance with the 2xTC is lukewarm, but apparently it is very good.
ChrisMak wrote:
Thanks for posting.
His findings about performance with tc's are in line with other previews, nice to hear!
My wish for this lens with TC's is a high quality portable combo for walkaround use to complement the 600GM. I don't intend to use it in scenarios that would stress AF performance.
Initially I disliked the idea of having to use TC's opposed to having a solution like the Nikon 600PF, but having a 420mm f4 option is really very nice for shooting in forested areas. A max. aperture of f6.3 is very limiting.
The 300mm option is nice for landscape or contextual shots.
A bonus is the f5.6 aperture at 600mm, opposed to the standard of f6.3 for non-exotic telelenses.
This is all moot of course if performance with the 2xTC is lukewarm, but apparently it is very good. ...Show more →
If the 300 GM+2X TC is meaningfully sharper than the 200-600 at 600, I may get one mainly to shoot hummingbirds at close distance (about 2 meters) in my yard. The Nikon 600 PF's MFD is 4 meters, won't do it for me. The 200-600 is a bit too dim and it's not 600mm at MFD, according to many. I would like to see more direct comparison before I commit the $$$$. I have the 600GM but the MFD is too far for shooting hummingbirds in my yard.
ChrisMak wrote:
This is all moot of course if performance with the 2xTC is lukewarm, but apparently it is very good.
That's a question many want answered. But note that the answer will depend on whether you shoot stills or video (4k?), whether your body is high or low resolution, whether the tester is fazed by results when cropped (zoomed, pixel peeked, printed huge, whatever). And on whether the tester bothers to do an actual direct comparison or merely reports his impression after a few random shots. And of course whether he understands the vagaries of shooting through a lot of air.
It is perfectly possible that the TC2 actually takes better to the 300GM than to the 600GM. It seems rather more plausible that both lenses behave roughly on par with that TC, which means not particularly well. After all and according to Sony the 600GM has an ever so slightly better MTF than the 300GM and on the longer lens the optical angles required are more shallow in comparison. We will see when someone properly tests this.
Daran wrote:
That's a question many want answered. But note that the answer will depend on whether you shoot stills or video (4k?), whether your body is high or low resolution, whether the tester is fazed by results when cropped (zoomed, pixel peeked, printed huge, whatever). And on whether the tester bothers to do an actual direct comparison or merely reports his impression after a few random shots. And of course whether he understands the vagaries of shooting through a lot of air.
It is perfectly possible that the TC2 actually takes better to the 300GM than to the 600GM. It seems rather more plausible that both lenses behave roughly on par with that TC, which means not particularly well. After all and according to Sony the 600GM has an ever so slightly better MTF than the 300GM and on the longer lens the optical angles required are more shallow in comparison. We will see when someone properly tests this....Show more →
It's intriguing or at least remarkable, that I have heard in three reviews, Mark Galer, Mark Smith and now Alex Fung, that the 300GM works better with converters than any other telelens, or at least that it works remarkably well with converters and IQ degradation is minimal (AF remains to be seen).
Thinking about why that should be, I wonder if it has to do, besides with the optical quality of the 300GM, also with the fact that large telephoto lenses with bright apertures and long focal lengths, are difficult in use, especially handheld, and also tend to suffer from atmospheric conditions, both of which are enhanced when putting on TC's. Also, Sony is not exactly known for state of the art lens stabilization, making it more difficult to get the best out of its long telephoto lenses at least when not on a tripod.
The 300GM has a focal length that is still relatively easy to use, is very small and very light, so perhaps it is within bounds when used with both TC's to get the best out of it.
ChrisMak wrote:
It's intriguing or at least remarkable, that I have heard in three reviews, Mark Galer, Mark Smith and now Alex Fung, that the 300GM works better with converters than any other telelens, or at least that it works remarkably well with converters and IQ degradation is minimal (AF remains to be seen).
Thinking about why that should be, I wonder if it has to do, besides with the optical quality of the 300GM, also with the fact that large telephoto lenses with bright apertures and long focal lengths, are difficult in use, especially handheld, and also tend to suffer from atmospheric conditions, both of which are enhanced when putting on TC's. Also, Sony is not exactly known for state of the art lens stabilization, making it more difficult to get the best out of its long telephoto lenses at least when not on a tripod.
The 300GM has a focal length that is still relatively easy to use, is very small and very light, so perhaps it is within bounds when used with both TC's to get the best out of it....Show more →
Wasn’t there a rumor about next generation TCs a year or two ago on that rumor website?
Just put on a7r5 just to see the yield on f. 2.8
karmal.prodibi.com/a/4ykr8wj88ro1dvl/i/jvyq6gdrow9emxl
A quick test of two a7r5s on one 300gm and 2x, in the other 600gm shots at f.5.6 on tripod remote shutter same identical focus point stabilizer off... obviously the 600 wins but I thought much, much worse :fgreen:
100% enlargements
With lens hood and foot we are around 1747 grams, this lens with 1.4 x for stuff that flies freehand so much stuff feels like you have nothing in your hand :fgreen:
Here full res 300 gm with 2x iso 100 f.5.6 1/25 sec
With lens hood and foot we are around 1747 grams, this lens with 1.4 x for stuff that flies freehand so much stuff feels like you have nothing in your hand :fgreen: https://i.postimg.cc/L4r5NrHv/20240202-134943.jpg
So 3 quality lenses in one compact package assuming you have the TC's. Yea those results would be good enough for anything I'd shoot at 600mm (field sports).
With lens hood and foot we are around 1747 grams, this lens with 1.4 x for stuff that flies freehand so much stuff feels like you have nothing in your hand :fgreen: https://i.postimg.cc/L4r5NrHv/20240202-134943.jpg
Here full res 300 gm with 2x iso 100 f.5.6 1/40 sec
karmal.prodibi.com/a/4ykr8wj88ro1dvl/i/d4kdodgq9dgjxjm ...Show more →
Thank you for doing this exercise! Although the 600 (at multiple times the cost) is clearer and sharper, the 300 looks stellar. I never tried the Canon 300 v2 with the last iteration of their extenders, but even with the 1.4x, there was a fair amount of degradation of the fantastic 300 image.
I have to check if on A1 with 2x the AF slows down a lot, for now I've limited myself to checking the image quality, for birds in freehand flight it could surprise with 1.4x I will also check with 2x to keep in mind that it is very usable with 2x on posed birdlife and with a click you go to apasc at 900mm with excellent quality and impressive weight .. Sony has made another masterpiece
Karmal wrote:
A quick test of two a7r5s on one 300gm and 2x, in the other 600gm shots at f.5.6 on tripod remote shutter same identical focus point stabilizer off... obviously the 600 wins but I thought much, much worse :fgreen:
100% enlargements
Thank you very much for the comparison and the work.
Looks to me like 300GM with 2X is at its resolution limits on the A7Rv but 600GM has a lot more to offer.
Also 600GM has the advantage of being stopped down.
I wonder how the 300GM+2X compares to 200-600mm. Even stopping down 300mm+2x 1/3rd stop to f6.3 might put it on level with it.
With lens hood and foot we are around 1747 grams, this lens with 1.4 x for stuff that flies freehand so much stuff feels like you have nothing in your hand :fgreen: https://i.postimg.cc/L4r5NrHv/20240202-134943.jpg
Here full res 300 gm with 2x iso 100 f.5.6 1/40 sec
karmal.prodibi.com/a/4ykr8wj88ro1dvl/i/d4kdodgq9dgjxjm ...Show more →
I'm liking the background and the lack of chromatic aberrations in these images. Often lenses with the 2x attached suffer from CA and it's usually worst in the corners. So far, so good.
Interesting difference in perception. I remain unconvinced that this combo matches the central sharpness of what a 200-600 would give you. Meanwhile you guys seem to consider it praiseworthy?
PS: Of course stopping down might help quite a bit.
Daran wrote:
Interesting difference in perception. I remain unconvinced that this combo matches the central sharpness of what a 200-600 would give you. Meanwhile you guys seem to consider it praiseworthy?
PS: Of course stopping down might help quite a bit.
I wouldn't be buying it for its sharpness, as long as it is close to the 200-600. I want the better background and the subsequent increased contrast between the subject and the background. Sharpness is over-rated.
Daran wrote:
Interesting difference in perception. I remain unconvinced that this combo matches the central sharpness of what a 200-600 would give you. Meanwhile you guys seem to consider it praiseworthy?
PS: Of course stopping down might help quite a bit.
Alex Phan seems to think its sharper.
I am pretty convinced it will be better than 200-600mm at 300mm and 420mm.
The jury is out for me at 600mm.
if at 600mm f6.3 they are both equal, I think I'll make the switch.
The 200-600mm at long end is closer to 525mm at longer focus distances. And if the 300GM+2X is closer to 600mm that needs to be taken into account also. Less cropping mean better results.
I already have 1.4x and 2x TCs.
if this doesn't work out I am seriously considering moving to nikon for that 400mm f4.5.
I thought that's a comparison to 200-600 for a second . Considering, it's vs stopped down 600GM I think the new GM holds up extremely well.
I'm mostly surprised at near lack of CA as those stood out to me on 70-200GMII+2x combo more than the apparent drop in sharpness...
nandbytes wrote:
Alex Phan seems to think its sharper.
I am pretty convinced it will be better than 200-600mm at 300mm and 420mm.
The jury is out for me at 600mm.
if at 600mm f6.3 they are both equal, I think I'll make the switch.
The 200-600mm at long end is closer to 525mm at longer focus distances. And if the 300GM+2X is closer to 600mm that needs to be taken into account also. Less cropping mean better results.
I already have 1.4x and 2x TCs.
if this doesn't work out I am seriously considering moving to nikon for that 400mm f4.5.
I confirm what was said, used with the 2x it performs better than the 200-600.
In practice, in output the only real difference is the blur, because the greater definition appears if you are at 100% given the quality levels of the lenses in question, but for those who perhaps go for crop it may still be of interest.
The stabilization of the 300 is significantly better....but so much...,
Although it was possible for me to film with my cell phone with one hand and the other on the camera, I wanted to check the af speed on the a7r5 with 300gm with 2x.
. Considering, it's vs stopped down 600GM I think the new GM holds up extremely well.