Someone did a comparison with the 200-600 on Facebook. No idea if the link below will work. Not much difference at 600mm it seems so if you were hoping for significantly sharper/better contrast there doesn't appear to be.
Sony is making masterpieces both with optics and cameras. I didn't believe that with this 300 GM it would limit weight and implement optical quality... who knows if a 500 GM will ever come out with these characteristics... the optical scheme was released together with the 600 GM maybe we'll see it with the release of the A1II and maybe the new tcs
duncang wrote:
Someone did a comparison with the 200-600 on Facebook. No idea if the link below will work. Not much difference at 600mm it seems so if you were hoping for significantly sharper/better contrast there doesn't appear to be.
But these are all more or less close distance subjects, where the 2x converter never had any significant problems.
Please do some distant testing - i.e. at least 50-100m apart from the target, which is much more challenging for a TC!
the tests you mean will still be distorted to determine the optical quality because they should be done on a perfect day free of humidity and air pollution... and in any case nothing would change. Paraxidically, the 300 gm would be better having a smaller front lens, amplifying the factors less environmental
The report says if you order it now, you'll probably have to wait. I'm sure there are some that preordered that will get there's on time and as is always the case with backordered items, some will be lucky and walk in a grab it from somewhere.
I do think there is a lot of excitement for this lens though. The FL and price point makes it attractive to begin with. I do think all the talk of using it with teleconverters to get 420/f4, 600/f5.6 with minimal loss of sharpness, resolution is carrying a lot of weight here.
Dultimate wrote:
The report says if you order it now, you'll probably have to wait. I'm sure there are some that preordered that will get there's on time and as is always the case with backordered items, some will be lucky and walk in a grab it from somewhere.
I do think there is a lot of excitement for this lens though. The FL and price point makes it attractive to begin with. I do think all the talk of using it with teleconverters to get 420/f4, 600/f5.6 with minimal loss of sharpness, resolution is carrying a lot of weight here.
I personally don't think availability is a good indicator of product quality and in EU pre-orders are not that prevalent as in the U.S. Anyways, what I meant is that I can literally order it right now and have it tomorrow, the day after tomorrow tops .
I mean...I would agree that availability is not a good indicator of quality. I don't think the backorder is speaking to the quality of the product but more the excitement for it, which could be for a variety of reasons.
Dultimate wrote:
I do think all the talk of using it with teleconverters to get 420/f4, 600/f5.6 with minimal loss of sharpness, resolution is carrying a lot of weight here.
I think the idea is that the resolutions are obtainable by not carrying a lot of weight! /s.
Anyway I pre-ordered last December. The expected ship date for my vendor is Feb 23 (in USA). The posted rumor has me non-excited to say the least.
Any speculation why Fluorite elements were not used as they did in the 400/600GM.
The MTF curves supplied by Sony are slightly off those of the bigger lenses. This may have an effect on converter use?
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.
What is your idea of longer focal distances ?
Beyond 24m it gets even closer to 100% of the 600 f/4. Maybe the 600 f/4 is actually 530mm not 600mm ??
This is a mistake, the focal length of the 200-600 decreases when focussing closer and increases when focussing further away. At infinity it should be very close to 600mm, but at below 10m not so.
I don't believe that the 600GM is actually 600mm either: the focal length is rounded off to 600mm, but the patent for this lens says 582mm.
ChrisMak wrote:
This is a mistake, the focal length of the 200-600 decreases when focussing closer and increases when focussing further away. At infinity it should be very close to 600mm, but at below 10m not so.
I don't believe that the 600GM is actually 600mm either: the focal length is rounded off to 600mm, but the patent for this lens says 582mm.
Some more info on the subject + examples by Jan Wegener here as well: &t=1576s
ChrisMak wrote:
This is a mistake, the focal length of the 200-600 decreases when focussing closer and increases when focussing further away. At infinity it should be very close to 600mm, but at below 10m not so.
I don't believe that the 600GM is actually 600mm either: the focal length is rounded off to 600mm, but the patent for this lens says 582mm.
I assume you must mean this below is a mistake
nandbytes wrote:
The 200-600mm at long end is closer to 525mm at longer focus distances
Either way at working distances it is within 95% of the 600 f/4. Hardly even worth a mention. At below 10 meters who really cares, imo it is the only 600mm zoom that is sharp enough wide open to even be used.
duncang wrote:
I assume you must mean this below is a mistake
Either way at working distances it is within 95% of the 600 f/4. Hardly even worth a mention. At below 10 meters who really cares, imo it is the only 600mm zoom that is sharp enough wide open to even be used.
Hello everyone, I am a very old user who hasn't written (read only) for too long, and since I no longer had the registration email I had to redo the account.
Since a friend came in and posted the tests I thought it would be useful to report the ones I did as well, keeping in mind that I find them purely indicative because the differences in definition that are only noticeable at 100% do not change life in practical use.
The differences offered by this optic lie in weight, bulk compared to other solutions, bokeh in the various focal lengths, and of course construction.
Now some test...even particular test , all photos are OOC, so the resolution is even lower than what is possible to obtain; at the end I have posted a RAW of 300+2X....where is possible to understand how it perform.
The color may change even in the same section because some cloud or other.
300 with 2x + 1-4x at 150%.
https://i.postimg.cc/VLthQKJM/300-2x-1-4x-d.jpg
300 with 2x at 150%
https://i.postimg.cc/NMXnsL5b/300-2x-d.jpg
300 with 2x + 1-4x at 150%
https://i.postimg.cc/c4kvWJYV/300-2x-1-4x-e.jpg
300 with 2x at 150%
https://i.postimg.cc/hPDmgwY7/300-2x-e.jpg
PS
Obviously af is limited, impossible over 20-30mt..
Here the files:
e.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZLRveZqEiKiWVNuNfE733mH5Pr3fMibsYX
e.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZ4RveZ9JDqRxxiTTmWscAbydo2gJfCaj0X
e.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZmRveZPgGJOHVoOXm9XJYgedcjdVLIOo07
e.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZhRveZIkxrcqtI0SzI4AzNOken2yICuY3y
----------------
200-600@300mm magnification 150% (on the forum maybe seen smaller)
https://i.postimg.cc/Znp4Vptt/200-600-300f.jpg
70-200GM2+1.4x @280mm 150% magnification (on forum maybe see smaller)
https://i.postimg.cc/zfHh82Tn/70-200-1-4-280f.jpg
300 150% magnification (on forum maybe see smaller)
https://i.postimg.cc/htWW2fpc/300f.jpg
200-600@404mm 150% magnification (on forum maybe see smaller)
https://i.postimg.cc/6Qgkgqh9/200-600-400g.jpg
70-200GM2+2X@400mm 150% magnification (on the forum maybe seen smaller)
https://i.postimg.cc/kgq9n28w/70-200-2-400g.jpg
300+1.4X@420mm 150% magnification (on the forum maybe seen smaller)
...
.
