nmerc_photos wrote:
…
At the 600mm focal length, it's pretty universally accepted that there's little to no qualitative difference between the 600GM and 300GM + 2x. Nobody in the world could accurately and repeatedly tell one lens from the other in blind tests, that we're aware of. It's purely a 1 stop of light difference for ~$4K extra, that also comes with double the weight.
Do you have a citation for this claim or a reference, where someone has compared the 600/4 versus 300/2.8 x2 with proper thoroughness?
nmerc_photos wrote:
Nobody in the world could accurately and repeatedly tell one lens from the other in blind tests, that we're aware of.
Citation needed. I have both. The 600 is only a bit sharper in the center but significantly sharper and has much less CA away from the center compared to the 300*2. If you present the same heavily cropped but otherwise perfect shot, you can tell them apart. See e.g. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1849568/4&year=2024#16499657
That said, the 300*2 is still pretty good, even with the TC. Without TC the 300 is even better than the 600. And without a direct comparison, I could not tell them apart, but that is true for most lenses. Only under very good circumstances does this difference even exist. Getting out shooting before heat haze develops is certainly more important than which lens to bring.
With every lens I've owned the keeper rate any time I add a 2x to a lens goes down. How much or how important that is to your shooting is unique. I have always been able to get good shots with a 2x, but at the cost of missing many others. How does the 300 and 2x do with fast and accurate AF? Is there a dramatic fall in in number of keepers in a sequence or initial acquisition? I'm sure when both a bare 600 and 300 with a 2x nail the shot they are close to the same in image quailty, but I'm more concerned with how many misses are there with a 2x.
Daran wrote:
Citation needed. I have both. The 600 is only a bit sharper in the center but significantly sharper and has much less CA away from the center compared to the 300*2. If you present the same heavily cropped but otherwise perfect shot, you can tell them apart. See e.g. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1849568/4&year=2024#16499657
That said, the 300*2 is still pretty good, even with the TC. Without TC the 300 is even better than the 600. And without a direct comparison, I could not tell them apart, but that is true for most lenses. Only under very good circumstances does this difference even exist. Getting out shooting before heat haze develops is certainly more important than which lens to bring....Show more →
