ChrisMak wrote:
That would be a very odd choice for Sony to make.
But a 400mmf4 with built-in 1.4 TC would be a viable choice. I would likely buy such a lens if GM line.
But still my preferred option would be a 600mm f5.6 GM, although I know that is álso a lens that Sony will never make, but I would be willing to pay a GM price for such a lens.
I will take a 600 f5.6 too. Since the 300 f2.8+2X TC is so good already, I wouldn't imagine it will take too much engineering effort to make a 600 f5.6 that's even slightly sharper and shorter than the 300 f2.8+2X TC combo. But the MFD will need to be similar to the 300 GM's for me to buy one.
I use my filter for anything to do with water (if I bring it). It tends to cut through the haze, but at a cost of 2 stops of light. Using TC's also cuts the light. It gets to the point that a 400/800 makes sense.
For birding, I use the 300/2.8 + 2xTC almost all of the time (it is over a year since I used my 200-600). I have yet to use the x1.4 with it.
I do not own the 600/4, although I have been tempted to buy it for several years. I did, however, own the original Canon 500/4, which I did handhold a certain amount. My experience with that makes me say, with some certainty, that I am happy to stick with the 300 + TC, and am no longer tempted by the 600/4.
(Granted, the old Canon 500/4 was somewhat heavier, 3.9kg if I recall correctly, but I was also twenty years younger when I was first using it. Another relevant point is that I usually hike at least a mile or two to where I photograph birds.)
At some point, I may try the 400-800, but I may not. I agree with the earlier poster who said that something like Nikon’s 800mm PF absolutely would be worth buying, but I am not going to change systems purely to do that (I’m more likely to upgrade my A1 to and A1 mk 3 (or whatever comes next)).
Douglas L wrote:
I will take a 600 f5.6 too. Since the 300 f2.8+2X TC is so good already, I wouldn't imagine it will take too much engineering effort to make a 600 f5.6 that's even slightly sharper and shorter than the 300 f2.8+2X TC combo. But the MFD will need to be similar to the 300 GM's for me to buy one.
If I were to shoot only closer subjects in good light, I would have gotten the 300GM and put the 2xTC on it. I did that for some time with the Canon 400DOII, until I resorted to the 1.4TC. I do a lot of shooting at medium or > distances and often rely on cropping the A1 to aps-c or beyond and even though I am convinced by the heaps of praise for the 300GM with a 2xTC, I still know how a 2xTC behaves, it gets progressively worse as distance increases and I have also read a lot of reviews that temper the high praise for the 300GM+2xTC to somewhat more realistic levels. When I see shots from the 300GM+1.4TC then I really feel the urge myself for some high praise, hence my suggestion for a 400mm f4GM with 1.4TC.
I think a 600mm f5.6GM would fix this and make it a much more universally high level lens that would also fit my shooting style.
michal.narozny wrote:
I wish I had one but as I know I would use it very rarely ... the price puts me off. It is a pity no third party manufacturers make one.
One source may be of use for price; I got mine used from lens rental on sale.
I recently went through this same decision. Initially, I considered the 400mm f/2.8, thinking it would effectively give me 560mm with a 1.4× teleconverter and 800mm with a 2×. But the more I researched, the more it seemed the 400 is starting to show its age and doesn’t perform especially well with teleconverters—particularly the 2×.
My local shop had a 600mm f/4 in stock, and I gave that some serious thought. I’ve used 600s from both Nikon and Canon before, and while I absolutely love the rendering for bird photography, it’s not a very practical walkaround lens.
These days, I prefer to shoot handheld and only use a tripod when I’m working from a blind. Because of that, I decided to pass on the 600 and went with the 300mm paired with a 2×. It’s an absolute gem.
Ultimately, I’d base the decision on how you plan to shoot—whether you’re comfortable being tripod-bound or prefer the flexibility of handheld shooting.
scott f wrote:
I recently went through this same decision. Initially, I considered the 400mm f/2.8, thinking it would effectively give me 560mm with a 1.4× teleconverter and 800mm with a 2×. But the more I researched, the more it seemed the 400 is starting to show its age and doesn’t perform especially well with teleconverters—particularly the 2×.
My local shop had a 600mm f/4 in stock, and I gave that some serious thought. I’ve used 600s from both Nikon and Canon before, and while I absolutely love the rendering for bird photography, it’s not a very practical walkaround lens.
These days, I prefer to shoot handheld and only use a tripod when I’m working from a blind. Because of that, I decided to pass on the 600 and went with the 300mm paired with a 2×. It’s an absolute gem.
Ultimately, I’d base the decision on how you plan to shoot—whether you’re comfortable being tripod-bound or prefer the flexibility of handheld shooting. ...Show more →
Yeah IMO the 400 f2.8 is the worst compromise for birds, because its almost the same weight and price as 600 so if your going to go big, might as well get the 600f4 big.
Used Sony 400mm f/2.8 lenses are showing up in good to excellent condition at MPB from 8k-9k though. And you won't be locked into just birding with it but you can use it for birding with the teleconverters.
