How was the AF consistency with the 2x vs. the 200-600?
Thank you Robert! For the rehearsal on Tuesday, I had the 300 GM +2X TC on one A1, and the 200-600 on another A1, for airshows I need the versatility of the zoom, the 300 GM will never replace it. I just wanted to get the 300 GM out to play with it a bit more because it's been sitting on the desk. My standard airshow setups in the last two years have been the 200-600 on one A1, and the 600 GM+1.4TC on another. Airshows are not that demanding on AF so I couldn't really tell if the 300+2X TC focused better than the 200-600, but I can tell you this, on Wednesday I went back to see the show again, this time I only brought the 200-600 with me, not the 300 GM. My 200-600 is plenty sharp and I needed the versatility. I will never sell the 200-600 unless Sony comes out a version II. The 300 GM is unbelievably light though.
Douglas L wrote:
Thank you Robert! For the rehearsal on Tuesday, I had the 300 GM +2X TC on one A1, and the 200-600 on another A1, for airshows I need the versatility of the zoom, the 300 GM will never replace it. I just wanted to get the 300 GM out to play with it a bit more because it's been sitting on the desk. My standard airshow setups in the last two years have been the 200-600 on one A1, and the 600 GM+1.4TC on another. Airshows are not that demanding on AF so I couldn't really tell if the 300+2X TC focused better than the 200-600, but I can tell you this, on Wednesday I went back to see the show again, this time I only brought the 200-600 with me, not the 300 GM. My 200-600 is plenty sharp and I needed the versatility. I will never sell the 200-600 unless Sony comes out a version II. The 300 GM is unbelievably light though....Show more →
Thanks Douglas!
I agree with you. You definitely need the flexibility of a zoom for air shows. But I’m curious to see how the 300mm/2x performs
I’ve used a 400mm DO II/1.4x and a 100-400mm back when I was shooting Canon. So maybe I’ll go with the 300mm/2x on one body. And the 100-400mm on the other.
I really want to try the A9III’s airplane recognition and better IS out on 300mm. But I think that would be a mistake in terms of resolution. So I think I’ll go A9III/100-400 and A1/300mm +2x
I agree with you. You definitely need the flexibility of a zoom for air shows. But I’m curious to see how the 300mm/2x performs
I’ve used a 400mm DO II/1.4x and a 100-400mm back when I was shooting Canon. So maybe I’ll go with the 300mm/2x on one body. And the 100-400mm on the other.
I really want to try the A9III’s airplane recognition and better IS out on 300mm. But I think that would be a mistake in terms of resolution. So I think I’ll go A9III/100-400 and A1/300mm +2x
I don't think you need the plane subject recognition for airshows. That being said, I was amazed how the A7RV's plane recognition could pick out the cockpit of the planes when I was doing the air to air shoot with it last month. I was seriously tempted to get the A9III to use the 120 FPS to improve the odds of getting perfectly positioned opposing passes, but the buffer concerns me and 24 MP isn't doing it for me. I know it's fine for some, but just not for me.
Douglas L wrote:
I don't think you need the plane subject recognition for airshows. That being said, I was amazed how the A7RV's plane recognition could pick out the cockpit of the planes when I was doing the air to air shoot with it last month. I was seriously tempted to get the A9III to use the 120 FPS to improve the odds of getting perfectly positioned opposing passes, but the buffer concerns me and 24 MP isn't doing it for me. I know it's fine for some, but just not for me.
I know plane recognition isn't needed for airshows. But you know how it is when you get a new toy 😀
Plus, I was impressed with car recognition when I attended some races recently. So I'm curious to try it out
Long time sports shooter on You Tube been with Sony for quite some time. He thinks the 300 2.8 focuses faster than any of the other Sony primes and that the 300 with the 2x is the same AF speed as the bare 600 f4. Only one mans opinion but thought I would throw it out there.
sparadise wrote:
Long time sports shooter on You Tube been with Sony for quite some time. He thinks the 300 2.8 focuses faster than any of the other Sony primes and that the 300 with the 2x is the same AF speed as the bare 600 f4. Only one mans opinion but thought I would throw it out there.
I'd agree it is the fastest of them all as a bare lens. I don't find the 300/2x to be faster than the 600GM bare. But it is pretty amazing how fast the 300/2x is. So much faster than 400 or 600GM with the 2x. I'd trust getting more keepers in a burst with bare 600GM than the 300/2x and IQ is better also (as one would probably expect).
arbitrage wrote:
I'd agree it is the fastest of them all as a bare lens. I don't find the 300/2x to be faster than the 600GM bare. But it is pretty amazing how fast the 300/2x is. So much faster than 400 or 600GM with the 2x. I'd trust getting more keepers in a burst with bare 600GM than the 300/2x and IQ is better also (as one would probably expect).
That make sense . Would you say the 2-6 is better in any way than the 300 2x in good light. Debating if I should keep the 2-6 or go with the 100-400 for a zoom. Which would you choose ?
That make sense . Would you say the 2-6 is better in any way than the 300 2x in good light. Debating if I should keep the 2-6 or go with the 100-400 for a zoom. Which would you choose ?
I 've owned the 3 lenses, the 200-600 being the oldest and most used but after acquiring the 100-400 and 300 I decided to let it go
Reasons:
1- it' s heaviest of the bunch
2- IQ comes in 3rd
3- AF comes in 3rd
4- It's a bit unwieldy for travels
5- It's harder to handhold for a long time
What I like about the 200-600:
1- can get to 840mm or 1200mm if used with TC
2- internal zoom
My 300 + 2x is now my main gear for birding
I resort to APSC and CIZ for longer reach
I still keep the 100-400 for other needed circumstances , like closer subjects, and esp. video
If you don't have the 300 then the 200-600 is the more versatile lens than the 100-400
Cheers,
sparadise wrote:
That make sense . Would you say the 2-6 is better in any way than the 300 2x in good light. Debating if I should keep the 2-6 or go with the 100-400 for a zoom. Which would you choose ?
Other than the versatility of having the zoom, I don't think I'd ever reach for a 200-600 over the 300/2x. I sold my 200-600 a good while ago as I was never using it.
I have the 100-400GM which I don't use a lot but do use it for semi-macro type stuff or if I'm just out casually with family and not dedicated to bird photography and don't want to take a big prime lens.
Therefore I think the 100-400 makes a better addition to the 300GM than the 200-600.
arbitrage wrote:
Just the 3 lenses I think would fit but I don't have my own copy of 300GM to test. Whether there is room for a camera or two, I'm not sure?
deevee wrote:
I 've owned the 3 lenses, the 200-600 being the oldest and most used but after acquiring the 100-400 and 300 I decided to let it go
Reasons:
1- it' s heaviest of the bunch
2- IQ comes in 3rd
3- AF comes in 3rd
4- It's a bit unwieldy for travels
5- It's harder to handhold for a long time
What I like about the 200-600:
1- can get to 840mm or 1200mm if used with TC
2- internal zoom
My 300 + 2x is now my main gear for birding
I resort to APSC and CIZ for longer reach
I still keep the 100-400 for other needed circumstances , like closer subjects, and esp. video
If you don't have the 300 then the 200-600 is the more versatile lens than the 100-400
Cheers,...Show more →
I am 100% with you What APSC camera do you use. My thinking is the A1 for BIF and perhaps an APSC body for songbirds where super fast AF and fps isn't a necessity. Also could you translate CIZ for me. Thanks
arbitrage wrote:
Other than the versatility of having the zoom, I don't think I'd ever reach for a 200-600 over the 300/2x. I sold my 200-600 a good while ago as I was never using it.
I have the 100-400GM which I don't use a lot but do use it for semi-macro type stuff or if I'm just out casually with family and not dedicated to bird photography and don't want to take a big prime lens.
Therefore I think the 100-400 makes a better addition to the 300GM than the 200-600.
That's the way I am leaning at the moment . As always I respect your opinion a lot. Your results speak for themselves. Saw the hummers with the 400 2.8 you posted the other day and they were wonderful as usual. Are you going to keep it along with the 300 2.8 ?
I am 100% with you What APSC camera do you use. My thinking is the A1 for BIF and perhaps an APSC body for songbirds where super fast AF and fps isn't a necessity. Also could you translate CIZ for me. Thanks
When I say APSC I meant crop mode on A1
I don't need another APSC camera since I don't usually carry more than 1 body , nor more than 1 lens on a shoot
The A1 is such a versatile camera which caters to any circumstance
The 300 + 2X suffices for 98% of my shooting needs
sparadise wrote:
That's the way I am leaning at the moment . As always I respect your opinion a lot. Your results speak for themselves. Saw the hummers with the 400 2.8 you posted the other day and they were wonderful as usual. Are you going to keep it along with the 300 2.8 ?
I made the decision to sell the 400GM and use the proceeds for the 300GM and the rest can go towards the A1II. I wouldn't mind having the 400GM and 300GM but don't really want to spend that much ($8000 CAD) on the 300GM.
I'm still waiting for the 400GM to sell and when it does I will buy the 300GM.
I have the 300, 400, 600GM. Bird shooting is just a smaller subset that I use these for.
I fully agree that the 2x is very usable with the 300GM and makes it a great birding walk around lens due to the weight savings. Previously I would go more to my OM1 and 300f4 Pro for a lighter set up. (The 300f4 pro is actually slightly heavier than the 300GM which definitely caught my attention to buy the 300).
But I do not get the negativity of the 2x with the 600GM. IF the thermal conditions are good, the image quality is phenomenal and exceeds my original expectations based on the Canon 600's I have had. I have shot 1200mm landscapes that look like you used a macro lens. BUT, the thermal degradation is the limiting factor and it is not often it works out for landscapes. But close in birds are SHARP and aberrations are hard to find in the corners or anywhere. I guess at effective f8 the tracking at 1200mm will take a hit and if birds in flight is your main gig then maybe you would be less happy. I have not explored this as much with birds, but it does extremely well with things like surfing.
The 400GM is definitely the weakest with the 2x as it was in the Canon world. Still very usable though.
Some I think confuse image quality with thermal conditions which can even show up in bird shooting as the distances increase.
arbitrage wrote:
I made the decision to sell the 400GM and use the proceeds for the 300GM and the rest can go towards the A1II. I wouldn't mind having the 400GM and 300GM but don't really want to spend that much ($8000 CAD) on the 300GM.
I'm still waiting for the 400GM to sell and when it does I will buy the 300GM.
Why not all? You only live once and you can't take the $$$ with you when you're gone!
. That being said, I was amazed how the A7RV's plane recognition could pick out the cockpit of the planes when I was doing the air to air shoot with it last month. I was seriously tempted to get the A9III to use the 120 FPS to improve the odds of getting perfectly positioned opposing passes, but the buffer concerns me and 24 MP isn't doing it for me. I know it's fine for some, but just not for me.
