In my opinion the results with the 2x are more than "very good" but it remains a subjective opinion!
In my opinion also different if you test at short distance rather than medium distance, especially with long tele.
The tests I did showed a greater difference in resolution between photos at 3-4mt and photos at 20-30mt.
Giving judgments such as excellent, very good, very good....has really little value because adjectives attributed by personal perception and qualification; the results everyone can evaluate for themselves by looking at any test photos, while if you want to give a quantification...well the only way is a test on sights capable of providing lpm.
My judgment then varies over time, until not long ago I considered the 300 canon excellent in its performance, now I have another reference and consequently the judgment on the canon has changed. Tomorrow something even better than the Sony 300 will come out, and obviously I will have to revise my judgment on the earlier optics....
So far everything I have seen tells me 300mm f2.8 + 2x TC is at least as good as 200-600mm at 600mm.
It seems better than 100-400mm and 200-600mm at 300mm and 400/420mm.
I am mostly sold on the lens now.... just need to workout the trade-in value for one of my kidneys.
Credit to the Sonyalpha blog for doing the work and putting out there the general performance of this lens as well as the AF performance with both TC's, for those that are interested.
The AF results are with the A7RIV, which should be better with some of the newer cameras as well.
ChrisMak wrote:
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...
Agreed...no one should even care if you can't use a TC on that Sigma 500/5.6....why would you??
Even if Sony made a native 500/5.6 I wouldn't bother with a TC....even less so with a Sigma.
arbitrage wrote:
Agreed...no one should even care if you can't use a TC on that Sigma 500/5.6....why would you??
Even if Sony made a native 500/5.6 I wouldn't bother with a TC....even less so with a Sigma.
Why not?
I have used 1.4x TC with 100-400mm and 200-600mm in the past on nice sunny days. In fact used it quite a lot with 100-400mm because 200-600mm was released for a while after 100-400mm.
Its certainly useful to have this option.
For slower moving and larger subjects, TCs are just fine (kind of). If one is doing BIF, particularly smaller/difficult birds like swallows and diving terns, the slight hit in AF is enough to reduce the meaningfully lower the keeper rate.
I say TCs are just fine because most wildlife photogs only care about getting a sharp image. I find that many images taken with zooms + TCs have horrible rendering. The 200-600 with TCs looks crazy flat unless there is a lot of natural contrast between the subject and background.
I am not saying we should constantly use TCs on slower lenses but having the option to do so for the right situations is useful. So I don't understand why no one should care about being able to use it.
berimbolo wrote:
For slower moving and larger subjects, TCs are just fine (kind of). If one is doing BIF, particularly smaller/difficult birds like swallows and diving terns, the slight hit in AF is enough to reduce the meaningfully lower the keeper rate.
...
Is it the TCs or the maximum aperture that is reducing the keeper rate because of lower AF performance?
Obviously, on any individual lens, adding a TC will have an effect on image quality and AF performance. But that's not what we're interested in here, most people at least. The issue is, does the AF performance of the 300mm + 2x TC equal or better than that of the 200-600? The new lens with the TC has a slightly larger maximum aperture and the advantage of faster AF motors. On that basis, I would expect the new lens with 2x TC to outperform the naked 200-600. Which is why I ask the question above. Any ideas?
somersettr wrote:
Is it the TCs or the maximum aperture that is reducing the keeper rate because of lower AF performance?
The new lens with the TC has a slightly larger maximum aperture and the advantage of faster AF motors. On that basis, I would expect the new lens with 2x TC to outperform the naked 200-600. Which is why I ask the question above. Any ideas?
Did not think about this before but you're right. That's a good question. Is it the TCs or the maximum aperture that is reducing the keeper rate because of lower AF performance?
somersettr wrote:
Is it the TCs or the maximum aperture that is reducing the keeper rate because of lower AF performance?
Obviously, on any individual lens, adding a TC will have an effect on image quality and AF performance. But that's not what we're interested in here, most people at least. The issue is, does the AF performance of the 300mm + 2x TC equal or better than that of the 200-600? The new lens with the TC has a slightly larger maximum aperture and the advantage of faster AF motors. On that basis, I would expect the new lens with 2x TC to outperform the naked 200-600. Which is why I ask the question above. Any ideas?
I think its the maximum aperture. Im pretty sure the 400 F2.8 focuses faster than the 600 F4 given the same amount of light, but I can't afford a 400 F2.8 to test this out (yet).
Some of it is down to maximum aperture but the 600/4 native gives a noticeable higher hit rate than the 400/2.8 with 1.4TC (560 f/4) despite the same f/4 aperture.
I do think the 400GM focuses a little bit faster than the 600GM but it is really hard to tell. Both are blazing fast and noticeable better than 200-600.
The TCs just seem to interfere with ultimate focus IME. They are always slightly back focused in the shots they miss.
I can't say I have ever found the focus speed of the 200-600 with or without the TC to be any kind of limitation. It seems to be more than fast enough to acquire pretty much anything I have ever put in the frame.
As for hit rate - based on the improvement that comes with the A9 III, that seems to be more a factor of the camera than the lens combination.
I am thinking the title of my next video will be
"Does your camera come with glue - or does it come WELDED ON ??"
Any idea how they made this so light? The Canon 300mm 2.8 II is significantly heavier. Could Canon make one of similar weight or would the larger mount size prevent that?
Perhaps the weight is less due to new glass types and moving elements near the mount, and making them smaller then using more composites for the barrel as opposed to metal like in the canon EF 300 2.8 ii. Also maybe depending on more digital lens corrections to reduce size and lighter af motors. The canon 300 2.8 is quite old, had they made a version 3 or new rf version instead of a 100-300 2.8 zoom, it maybe be close to the same light weight as well.
Before I left the Canon ecosystem in 2018, I had the 600II, 400II, and 300II. I used the 300 a fair bit with the 2x as my "light" set up for the time, and I was quite satisfied with the results I was getting with it.
It seems that the 300GM X2 will be an improvement over the Canon combo and I am expecting to be even more satisfied. Personally, I find the 600GM with the 2X to be phenomenal, while the 400GM with the 2x to be only "good".
I have preordered the 300GM to add to my 600/400, but my dilemma is that I currently use the Olympus OM-1 with their 300f4 Pro as my light option. With the 300GM being as light as the Olympus 300f4 it tipped me over the fence to order it.
I dislike cropping for anything beyond fixing leveling issues, particularly with the Olympus being at 20MP. But my current thinking is that I will be at roughly the same weight using the 300GM with an A1 and achieve the same angle of view as the Olympus 300Pro. Thus I can then crop 1.5x into the image if I want to match the Olympus 300 with a 1.4X mounted, and still have a few more MP to spare.
We will do anything to rationalize getting a new lens.
You still have more "digital reach" with OM system. The 20mp m43 sensor is equal to 80mp FF sensor in terms of pixel density.
To match field of view of OM1+300mm with A1+300GM you'll need to crop 2x which will result in a 12.5mp final image. So you can't match the OM1 on "digital reach".
All that assumes that Sony 300GM and oly300mm are optically equal. I personally feel they are not, Oly is quite sharp but it's "only" f4. So if you stop down the GM it might be resolving more details than oly (purely anecdotal based on that "outstanding" rating that one review gave 300GM). By f5.6 you are hitting diffraction limits on oly.
white wrote:
Before I left the Canon ecosystem in 2018, I had the 600II, 400II, and 300II. I used the 300 a fair bit with the 2x as my "light" set up for the time, and I was quite satisfied with the results I was getting with it.
It seems that the 300GM X2 will be an improvement over the Canon combo and I am expecting to be even more satisfied. Personally, I find the 600GM with the 2X to be phenomenal, while the 400GM with the 2x to be only "good".
I have preordered the 300GM to add to my 600/400, but my dilemma is that I currently use the Olympus OM-1 with their 300f4 Pro as my light option. With the 300GM being as light as the Olympus 300f4 it tipped me over the fence to order it.
I dislike cropping for anything beyond fixing leveling issues, particularly with the Olympus being at 20MP. But my current thinking is that I will be at roughly the same weight using the 300GM with an A1 and achieve the same angle of view as the Olympus 300Pro. Thus I can then crop 1.5x into the image if I want to match the Olympus 300 with a 1.4X mounted, and still have a few more MP to spare.
We will do anything to rationalize getting a new lens....Show more →
