Can't get detail with a 200-600? Come on....give me a break.
This one has the 2xTC on it. Anytime you can get as close as that roadrunner (as I did with this Pygmy) you can get crazy detail with any lens.
The place this 300GM is going to fail is the same place all of Sony's lenses fail with TCs and that is with AF.
I don't touch TCs at all anymore because of this. The 300GM may be better than 400GM and 600GM but I doubt it will be consistent enough to use as a 600mm lens all the time. Unless your thing is birds on a stick...then I guess it will be feasible.
Douglas L wrote:
Would love to see if the 300 GM+2X TC is sharper than the 200-600 at 600mm. May get one to shoot hummingbirds in my yards if it's sharper. I have no use for 300mm, so it may be silly to buy a 300mm lens to use it with a 2X TC all the time.
It is silly. Especially when you own all the native 600mm lenses you do
arbitrage wrote:
It is silly. Especially when you own all the native 600mm lenses you do
I agree with Geoff. There is no free lunch if it is coming down of using TCs. I use them but I don’t expect wonders though. One aspect that proves to be true though. At 600mm setting, the 200-600mm lens has a narrower FOV compared to the 300mm plus 2X. That shows that the actual FL on the long end is probably closer to 550mm or so. But we knew that, didn’t we 😃?
AGeoJO wrote:
I agree with Geoff. There is no free lunch if it is coming down of using TCs. I use them but I don’t expect wonders though. One aspect that proves to be true though. At 600mm setting, the 200-600mm lens has a narrower FOV compared to the 300mm plus 2X. That shows that the actual FL on the long end is probably closer to 550mm or so. But we knew that, didn’t we 😃?
Sorry, are you saying that the 300GM isn't actually 300mm (ie. 300GM + 2xTC ~= 550mm)? Or did you mean to say the 200-600 has a wider FOV compared to the 300+2x?
berimbolo wrote:
Sorry, are you saying that the 300GM isn't actually 300mm (ie. 300GM + 2xTC ~= 550mm)? Or did you mean to say the 200-600 has a wider FOV compared to the 300+2x?
It is the later. In other words, at 600mm setting the zoom lens is not actually 600mm but closer to 550mm. I noticed that when compared to the prime GM 600mm lens on the first day I compared both in 2019.
AGeoJO wrote:
It is the later. In other words, at 600mm setting the zoom lens is not actually 600mm but closer to 550mm. I noticed that when compared to the prime GM 600mm lens on the first day I compared both in 2019.
This is only the case at shorter focusing distances, right? I had read that at around 12-15m out, the 200-600 at 600mm gives a similar FOV to the 600GM.
berimbolo wrote:
This is only the case at shorter focusing distances, right? I had read that at around 12-15m out, the 200-600 at 600mm gives a similar FOV to the 600GM.
I did that under controlled conditions on tripod in my backyard and that’s pretty much the only way that I noticed that. And yes, the distance was fairly close. I venture to guess that it was similar to what Alex did and presented above. I couldn’t tell the difference under real life shooting conditions after that, but I didn’t do any comparison anyway since it didn’t make much sense, if any, doing so.
Thanks for posting the pictures. A great amount of details with the 300mm + TC 1.4 , as well as a nice rendering. As for the AF, Tony & Chealsy show a small degradation when using the TC 2x at 30fps on the A1. Might not be an issue at lower fps, and could be improved later with the final firmware.
The place this 300GM is going to fail is the same place all of Sony's lenses fail with TCs and that is with AF.
I don't touch TCs at all anymore because of this. The 300GM may be better than 400GM and 600GM but I doubt it will be consistent enough to use as a 600mm lens all the time. Unless your thing is birds on a stick...then I guess it will be feasible.
...r
Geoff. I can understand why adding a teleconverter to a lens would reduce the AF performance relative to the native lens. But in this case, I thnk what most of us here thinking about with the 300mm + 2x is how does the AF performance compare with the 200-600? The 300mm probably has better AF motors than the 200-600 and the aperture is slightly larger even with the 2x. So, I was hoping that the AF would be at least as good as thje 200-600.
What is your experience in this regard? What is the 600mm like with the 1.4x compared to the 200-600 for example? Your thoughts and experience would be very welcome. Is it speed or accuracy degradation? Or both?
The posted samples look really good, much more GM like than the 200-600 i.m.o.
The 300GM with 2xtc seems to hold up realky well on the demanding A1.
So judging by these samples I would prefer the 300GM with tc's over the 200-600G.
I am not sure it will only be a bird on a stick combo, but won't be the best at BIF. That is a given.
ChrisMak wrote:
The posted samples look really good, much more GM like than the 200-600 i.m.o.
So judging by these samples I would prefer the 300GM with tc's over the 200-600G.
But this is still on the relatively low resolution A9III. The real test will be the performance on the much more demanding A1
ChrisMak wrote:
The posted samples look really good, much more GM like than the 200-600 i.m.o.
So judging by these samples I would prefer the 300GM with tc's over the 200-600G.
But this is still on the relatively low resolution A9III. The real test will be the performance on the much more demanding A1
