Laslo Varadi wrote:
The Nikon 180-600 seems to be very good also.
from what I can tell by wathcing/reading reviews while its closer to being a 600mm at closer focus distances its not as sharp as the sony 200-600mm.
in this case I'd personally take sharpness over better focus breathing correction.
having said that in both cases the lenses are too large and heavy for me which mean they will get left behind sometimes.
This is why the Z400/4.5 or this 300GM is so attractive for me.
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)
Laslo Varadi wrote:
The Nikon 180-600 seems to be very good also.
The one I tested was worse than the 200-500 wide open, it ended up getting traded in for a 600pf. Not many reviewers seem to find it particularly sharp wide open either. No sharp zoom is a dealbreaker as far as I am concerned.
nandbytes wrote:
from what I can tell by wathcing/reading reviews while its closer to being a 600mm at closer focus distances its not as sharp as the sony 200-600mm.
in this case I'd personally take sharpness over better focus breathing correction.
having said that in both cases the lenses are too large and heavy for me which mean they will get left behind sometimes.
This is why the Z400/4.5 or this 300GM is so attractive for me.
Agree. I use the 4.5 with the Z8 and 200-600 with the A1.
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)
This will be interesting if this is indeed true and lens is around ~1.5Kgs. The sad part is really no TCs on with Sigma lenses on Sony
More options for a lightweight combo!!
The A1 has enough resolution for my purposes to get by with cropping. A TC on a f5.6 lens is not that enticing anyway...
most probably.
Currently have an A7RV so not something that matters immediately.
Previously when I had the A1, the max I shot at was 20fps. So 15 fps is still pretty fast and not a huge downgrade.
But I do wish Sony would stop crippling 3rd parties on purpose with TC support and 15ps limits.
telyt wrote:
I wouldn't expect Sony to provide support for 3rd-party lenses.
There would be no software profiling of 3rd-party lenses with a Sony TC. You might get a few surprises like lateral CA, vignetting and/or distortion.
Not all lenses can keep up at speeds faster than 15 fps. More surprises.
I am not expecting Sigma lenses to work with Sony TCs but for them allow sigma to make TCs for Sony e-mount. Sigma make TCs for L-mount (and other DSLR mounts). Only reason they don't do the same for e-mount is because their agreement with sony doesn't allow this.
As for 15fps, why limit it artificially in software for all 3rd parties. Let the lens manufacturer decide that.
nandbytes wrote:
most probably.
Currently have an A7RV so not something that matters immediately.
Previously when I had the A1, the max I shot at was 20fps. So 15 fps is still pretty fast and not a huge downgrade.
But I do wish Sony would stop crippling 3rd parties on purpose with TC support and 15ps limits.
15FPS is not end of the world if we can get all images in focus. We lived with 8FPS few years ago. But I have my doubts about Sony. The Tamron 50-400 was horrible in tracking. Many images out of 15 were OOF. I don't know if it was Sony, Tamron or the combo. Simple sequence where I can get 90+ percent images in focus with 200-600 failed with Tamron. Hopefully Sigma will be better being a prime.
_MacTwin_ wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Thanks for the effort. Looks like 420mm easily better than 200-600 at 400mm and 600mm looks very close or slightly better than 200-600 at 600. I'm not worried about sharpness at this point. I want to see how AF works. Is it at the level of 600/4? (At least 300+1.4TC).
I can't imagine the AF being affected with 1.4x TC
The AF is mostly unaffected even with 70-200mm f4 G2 and 200-600mm when using 1.4x
2x is different story....
Jemini wrote:
Thanks for the effort. Looks like 420mm easily better than 200-600 at 400mm and 600mm looks very close or slightly better than 200-600 at 600. I'm not worried about sharpness at this point. I want to see how AF works. Is it at the level of 600/4? (At least 300+1.4TC).
sharpness was always higher in the 300 sony in every configuration, but the advantage vs the other sony zooms is mainly in the cutoff, in the quality of the bokeh
The performance with the 2x is such that it is clear how high the native resolution of this optic is, far beyond any need.
The AF speed with the 2x is still not clear to me, used from minimum to infinity sometimes it is very fast other times it slows down much more than the 200-600, I think there is something to be put right in the fw....but it could also be a limitation given by the circle of confusion produced by this 300 with the 2x...I don't know.
Obviously if used with 6mt infinite limiter the response is quick.
It is undoubtedly the best 300mm ever produced (I also had the Nikon), impressive for its weight but also for its capabilities.
It would be a dream if they decided to make a 500mm with similar improvements, and maybe even an 800 f6.3 copying the beautiful Nikon....but better, with serious af and customization switches...
.
, 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.
