Imagemaster wrote:
And how much more expensive would they have been, since the OM 150-400mm f/4.5 TC 1.25 IS PRO Lens is $8,600US?
Of course dearer but OM Pro lenses are no guide, they a ludicrously overpriced because they believe you are getting a 300-800 f/4.5. OM lenses are dearer than Gm lenses in Australia.
Also if you want to save money no one is stopping you buying the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 which is still available. IMO a 100-400 f/4.5 with built-in 1.25x would have been about $6K.
aCuria wrote:
If you are "95% of the time at 550-600mm" then the 100-400/4.5 is fairly pointless for you. Get the 300GM instead.
300/2.8 has a bigger NA than 400/4.5, so 300/2.8 should have higher angular resolution. Higher angular resolution means distant subjects will be sharper.
The teleconverter (TC) question isn't that straightforward. If the sensor resolution is high enough relative to the lens's optical performance, adding a TC will reduce image quality compared to cropping. Sony's strategy appears to be leveraging higher-resolution sensors, allowing users to crop aggressively while avoiding the optical compromises that can come with a teleconverter.
Firstly 300GM is over 4x the price of the 200-600G in Australia and having done the whole 300 f/2.8+2x many years ago, I couldn't wait to use a much longer FL for my birding. 300GM is stop gap at bets and I'm into relying on a 2x TC anymore.
Secondly 100-400 is extremely versatile and can be used for a lot of stuff outside wildlife and birding. So a 100-400 + 1.4x is IMO a much better option than a 300 f/2.8 + 2x. I get a more flexible lens, I get something that even with a 1.4x is lighter, has better AF, better OS, 75% more magnification at mfd, balances better, and has same IQ as a 200-600G anyway.
So I disagree totally 300GM is a better option especially when the 100-400 is about 25% cheaper.
