Bianco I think you mean that you get the same viewing angle using the 2x on the sony, because as you know the OM's sensor is 1/4 of the Sony, so you see as if it were a 600...obviously with the limitations given by cropping as far as PDC, noise, GD...etc.
By the way on the sony you have a larger aperture....
I consider the OM system great for situations where you need something really unobtrusive but far more efficient and effective than mobiles or fixed focal length cameras.
In your case I don't know how much sense it makes with the 300, which clearly takes up less space anyway....but as weights go it's not far off, and it's still an f4 on a 4//3...
I guess after some testing you might think about selling the 300/4, maybe.
_MacTwin_ wrote:
Bianco I think you mean that you get the same viewing angle using the 2x on the sony, because as you know the OM's sensor is 1/4 of the Sony, so you see as if it were a 600...obviously with the limitations given by cropping as far as PDC, noise, GD...etc.
By the way on the sony you have a larger aperture....
I consider the OM system great for situations where you need something really unobtrusive but far more efficient and effective than mobiles or fixed focal length cameras.
In your case I don't know how much sense it makes with the 300, which clearly takes up less space anyway....but as weights go it's not far off, and it's still an f4 on a 4//3...
I guess after some testing you might think about selling the 300/4, maybe....Show more →
I have used this combo (well with EM-1ii not OM1) and its a really sharp lens.
In my country olympus used to do a "try before you" which was basically free rental for a couple days.
The 150-400mm f4.5 which I never got to try is just as expensive as the 300GM and lot heavier.
So at this point I decided to stick with Sony (plus I'd want FF for my people shots and landscapes anyway)
I have not tried the 300 GM with the 2x yet. I have tried it with the 1.4x, which was fine. And without TC, which was thoroughly enjoyable. I should try the 2x this weekend.
I have long wanted a big white prime, but the 400 and 600 felt out of reach. The 300 is not.
mogul wrote:
Those flourite coated lenses cost $6000
I think you may be mistaken. Fluorite elements are solid fluorite, not "fluorite coated". Are you confusing it with "fluorine costed" elements (used to deal with fingerprints, etc).
Fluorite is a softer material than glass. I wonder if the problem lies with polishing it to the precision required today?
Almost all the references I found to fluorite are related to Canon - I wonder if they have a monopoly on it?
Tony absolutely not, Sony used fluorite for the 400 and 600, did not use it on the 300 probably because of cost or to keep the possibility of doing even better than they did with this 300 (which is now hard to believe).
The surface treatment is not called fluorite but fluorine, and it is a treatment to harden the surface and make it oleophobic.
arbitrage wrote:
I don't know what the 600/4 is actually but what I do know is when I tested it against the Canon RF600 it was shorter focal length than the Canon.
I wonder if they will ever make the 500mm f4. If they do, I am sure it will be a different design though, smaller and lighter.
Sony likes to do these kind of funny things. They claimed the 100-400 is the lightest in the category. It's true but with a cost. Lens become 5.6 at 164mm. Nikon's 100-400 stays below 5.6 until 380mm. One thing Sony does great is AF with camera and lenses. Nikon cripple their AF with lower end lenses.
I'm pretty sure the Canon 600 F4 is 588mm and the Nikon 600 F4 TC is also 588. I don't think these are meaningful differences that are limited only to Sony.
Do we know the true focal length of this 300 (at infinity and at close focus)? Any error doubles with a 2x TC. I wish lens companies had to disclose this information as part of their marketing.
greeneggs wrote:
Do we know the true focal length of this 300 (at infinity and at close focus)? Any error doubles with a 2x TC. I wish lens companies had to disclose this information as part of their marketing.
It should be on the patent, but I can't find it right now
Another really in-depth review. Lots of useful info even though I don't speak a word of Korean:
Especially the 2x TC section at the end (starting around 24:30). There's comparisons between 300GM + 1.4x vs 100-400 and the 300GM + 2x vs 200-600 @ 600mm
bartr wrote:
Another really in-depth review. Lots of useful info even though I don't speak a word of Korean:
Youtubes auto translation feature for subtitles works fairly well on that video.
bartr wrote:
Another really in-depth review. Lots of useful info even though I don't speak a word of Korean:
Especially the 2x TC section at the end (starting around 24:30). There's comparisons between 300GM + 1.4x vs 100-400 and the 300GM + 2x vs 200-600 @ 600mm
That's the first direct comparison I've seen between the 200-600 and 300mm + 2x and the 300mm is clearly sharper.
In all the samples I have seen so far from the 300GM with 2x TC I see a distinct warm color cast, yellowish in tint.
The 200-600, but also 100-400 look much more neutral to my eyes.
I downloaded some raw samples comparing the 200-600G and 300GM with 2xTC, and I also see it there.
The 300GM is definitely sharper and more detailed with 2xTC than the 200-600G, but the yellowish color cast puts me off. I would have to white balance each and every image, and it is not guaranteed that color fidelity is good afterwards.
I wonder why this lens with the 2xTC throws off the white balance. The raw samples have really high white balance values in pretty normal daylight, and also compared to identical shots with the 200-600G
The yellow dominance I think is due to the AR treatment of the tc2x, but I don't see it as a problem in the slightest, I've lived with Nikon's yellow toning for years, all it takes is a correct profile and a click, or possibly on the jpeg in the camera just lower the yellow a hair.
ChrisMak wrote:
In all the samples I have seen so far from the 300GM with 2x TC I see a distinct warm color cast, yellowish in tint.
The 200-600, but also 100-400 look much more neutral to my eyes.
I downloaded some raw samples comparing the 200-600G and 300GM with 2xTC, and I also see it there.
The 300GM is definitely sharper and more detailed with 2xTC than the 200-600G, but the yellowish color cast puts me off. I would have to white balance each and every image, and it is not guaranteed that color fidelity is good afterwards.
I wonder why this lens with the 2xTC throws off the white balance. The raw samples have really high white balance values in pretty normal daylight, and also compared to identical shots with the 200-600G...Show more →
Can you share those links?
I'd like to see that yellow cast vs 200-600 ...
As I wrote those tests are not to be trusted for colors because they are done with natural light that can change for just a cloud or a reflection of something.
Having seen all the shots the only thing I can have a doubt about and need to check is whether the 2x introduces a slight dominance.
But the 300 from what I have seen has absolutely no dominance, in fact it is definitely more neutral than other optics.
...