Ha! That's a big pill to swallow sight unseen. I already have a 200-600, so I have to see if the size/speed/sharpness benefits are worth the convenience trade-off.
Spara,
I have the 2xTC. If I'm spending time going between a 1.4, 2x, and bare lens, I might as well just stick with my 200-600.
Ha! That's a big pill to swallow sight unseen. I already have a 200-600, so I have to see if the size/speed/sharpness benefits are worth the convenience trade-off.
Spara,
I have the 2xTC. If I'm spending time going between a 1.4, 2x, and bare lens, I might as well just stick with my 200-600.
Steve
While the 2-6 is a fine lens it can't duplicate the IQ of the 300gm at 2.8 or with the 1.4 or 2x attached. It's a more expensive lens for a reason. For me the weight difference is also a big deal. The 2.8 at times is a big deal. I exclusively shoot birds in flight and small songbirds so a zoom isn't needed. Like I have said before lens choice depends on what you shoot, hiking distance. Most of the time I have the 2x attached
Fair points - that's why I'm trying the 300 out. I've only used zooms when birding but when I check my metadata, a large number of my shots were at or near 600. I'll report back!
sparadise wrote:
While the 2-6 is a fine lens it can't duplicate the IQ of the 300gm at 2.8 or with the 1.4 or 2x attached. It's a more expensive lens for a reason. For me the weight difference is also a big deal. The 2.8 at times is a big deal. I exclusively shoot birds in flight and small songbirds so a zoom isn't needed. Like I have said before lens choice depends on what you shoot, hiking distance. Most of the time I have the 2x attached
From my perspective (YMMV), what @sparadise says is spot on. My primary interest is birds, mainly in flight. Since buying the 2.8/300 a year ago, I have not used the 200-600 once (I may sell it).
Where I mostly shoot, in the Scottish Highlands, the birds are often too far away, so 840mm would be nice, but I rarely used the x1.4 with the 200-600 because of both the aperture penalty (Scottish light is rarely like that in Florida ….) and the effect on AF. Whereas I almost always use the x2 with the 300. There is ample evidence in this thread (not least from Geoff ( @arbitrage )) of the superb IQ that can be achieved using it with TCs. So, for now, I am very content with the 2.8/300 + x2 TC and A1 (the only other option now would be a 4/600 …. ).
Andrew CD wrote:
From my perspective (YMMV), what @sparadise@ says is spot on. My primary interest is birds, mainly in flight. Since buying the 2.8/300 a year ago, I have not used the 200-600 once (I may sell it).
Where I mostly shoot, in the Scottish Highlands, the birds are often too far away, so 840mm would be nice, but I rarely used the x1.4 with the 200-600 because of both the aperture penalty (Scottish light is rarely like that in Florida ….) and the effect on AF. Whereas I almost always use the x2 with the 300. There is ample evidence in this thread (not least from Geoff ( @arbitrage@ )) of the superb IQ that can be achieved using it with TCs. So, for now, I am very content with the 2.8/300 + x2 TC and A1 (the only other option now would be a 4/600 …. ). ...Show more →
How do you find the 300+TC AF accuracy vs the 2-6 in that murky Scottish light?
pshreevardhan wrote:
Anyone tried A1 MARK II with 300 f2.8+2x? Any significant improvement?
I've been using that combination since Mid December of last year when the A1 II launched. Previous to the mark 2 I used the 300GM with the original A1.
There are marked improvements in the new combination however most if not all are related to improvements in the A1 II, the 300GM behaves similarly when used on the A1, all to say that it is the fastest focusing and sharpest Sony lens I have personally used and when combined with the mark 2 it just works extremely well. A large percentage of my bird shots are BIF and this new combination has really improved my overall hit rate. All of the images I have posted on this thread since December 20th 2024 are with the new combination.
Ergonomically the camera just feels much better in the hand than my original mark 1 but honestly I felt the original never was a problem to begin with but I do like the feel of the new one better.
AF I think is improved with the A1 II, bird's eye stickiness in particular is better as is overall tracking for BIF when I compare it to the original A1.
The pre-capture feature is the really big change for me personally, I do a lot of raptor shooting and in particular Kestrels, you spend quite a bit of time waiting for something to happen, with the old mark 1 I would more often than not miss the launch shot from perches or a take-off from the ground with prey, with the new mark 2, I nail it almost every time.
MIRANDA1 wrote:
I've been using that combination since Mid December of last year when the A1 II launched. Previous to the mark 2 I used the 300GM with the original A1.
There are marked improvements in the new combination however most if not all are related to improvements in the A1 II, the 300GM behaves similarly when used on the A1, all to say that it is the fastest focusing and sharpest Sony lens I have personally used and when combined with the mark 2 it just works extremely well. A large percentage of my bird shots are BIF and this new combination has really improved my overall hit rate. All of the images I have posted on this thread since December 20th 2024 are with the new combination.
Ergonomically the camera just feels much better in the hand than my original mark 1 but honestly I felt the original never was a problem to begin with but I do like the feel of the new one better.
AF I think is improved with the A1 II, bird's eye stickiness in particular is better as is overall tracking for BIF when I compare it to the original A1.
The pre-capture feature is the really big change for me personally, I do a lot of raptor shooting and in particular Kestrels, you spend quite a bit of time waiting for something to happen, with the old mark 1 I would more often than not miss the launch shot from perches or a take-off from the ground with prey, with the new mark 2, I nail it almost every time....Show more →
Not sure if you shoot songbirds but the A1 struggles with small birds on an isolated branch at times . So my question is about acquisition vs stickiness. Have you noticed any difference ?
I haven't shot this combination for songbirds except for the series of images I posted a couple of days ago, it did just fine under those conditions however it was particularly challenging situation, I'm planning to this Spring but I have shot the warbler migration in the Spring and Autumn with the A1 and the 200-600, isolated warblers on a branch were never really a problem with that combination with firmware version 1.2 for me personally but it did struggle at times in heavy brush.
finally got my A1 II so I can start contributing to this thread more
learning how to utilize precapture is a whole new ball game. in this image I'm pretty sure focus jumped to the upper most wing, so the eye is OOF. but on small monitors you can't really tell
I was still happy with how easy it was to consistently get shots like this, that I'd previously struggled with
MIRANDA1 wrote:
I've been using that combination since Mid December of last year when the A1 II launched. Previous to the mark 2 I used the 300GM with the original A1.
There are marked improvements in the new combination however most if not all are related to improvements in the A1 II, the 300GM behaves similarly when used on the A1, all to say that it is the fastest focusing and sharpest Sony lens I have personally used and when combined with the mark 2 it just works extremely well. A large percentage of my bird shots are BIF and this new combination has really improved my overall hit rate. All of the images I have posted on this thread since December 20th 2024 are with the new combination.
Ergonomically the camera just feels much better in the hand than my original mark 1 but honestly I felt the original never was a problem to begin with but I do like the feel of the new one better.
AF I think is improved with the A1 II, bird's eye stickiness in particular is better as is overall tracking for BIF when I compare it to the original A1.
The pre-capture feature is the really big change for me personally, I do a lot of raptor shooting and in particular Kestrels, you spend quite a bit of time waiting for something to happen, with the old mark 1 I would more often than not miss the launch shot from perches or a take-off from the ground with prey, with the new mark 2, I nail it almost every time....Show more →
If I read the Sony info correctly on the A9 III you can set the function ring of the 300mm GM to be focus distance set and recall. Can you do that on the A1 II also or is that still only on the A9 III?
wordfool wrote:
How do you find the 300+TC AF accuracy vs the 2-6 in that murky Scottish light?
Fair question. I can't give you a great answer, I'm afraid, simply because (a) I've never tried to make any sort of direct comparison; and (b) as well as buying the 2.8/300, a short while earlier, I also swapped my original A9 for an A1, so I only used the 200-600 on the A1 a very few times, in mid-winter 23/24.
Subjectively, my impression (and it's really no more than that) is that the 300's AF is better (but it's stating the obvious to say that the A1 is far superior to the A9). What I can say, though, with greater certainty, is that the 300's AF seems quicker (which is presumably a function of it having better AF motors). And it's stating the obvious to say that the light gathering is superior.
Sorry I couldn't be more help, and with apologies for not having replied sooner.
).
