Andrew CD wrote:
These look great! Good feather detail. And i agree with one of the previous posts, the rendering looks rather nice.
If I may ask a very obvious question:
Have you had an opportunity to compare the 600 with a 300/2.8 + 2xTC and, if so, what did you conclude?
I have had the 300 for several years and find it excellent, most often using it with the 2xTC. But, if the IQ of the 600 is equally good or better and, in particular, if the AF is materially better (how many motors?), for BIF the weight saving is not to be sniffed at (with my rather modest skills, and even given the impressively low weight of the 300/2.8, I’m sure <1kg would make it quite a bit easier to keep the bird in the centre of the frame). Having the option of 840mm without stacking TCs is another factor.
robert614 wrote:
How was the show? Get some good pics?
It was a BUST!! They announced the Gripen, the Lansen and the Viggen (Swedish classic fighter jets), the Dutch F-35, the Belgium F-35 (for both Saturday's sunset show and Sunday's day time show), the Eurofighter Thyphoon, the Tornado, the Red Arrows, They dropped out one by one. Only the Tornato showed up on Saturday's sunset show, It wasn't even the Tornado demo jet, it's just a grey color Tornado from the Luftwaffle. They did send an F-86 Sabre. It was very cloudy, no sunset light at all. The Polish pilot started several fires in the grass area in the airfield when he was shooting fireworks from his plane. I left the Saturday show before it was over. I didn't go on Sunday due to the rainy weather and the lackluster lineup. Very disappointed. I haven't looked at the pictures yet. May have a few keepers.
I am in Delft, Netherlands right now and will tour around the country until Sunday.
Sorry for getting off the topic!
The more I look at it, the more likely I will pick up the new 600. It will be great for travel that involves fights. I have the 2X TC glued on the 300 GM 99% of the time anyway.
biggles2002 wrote:
Where in the video does he say "AF slower than 100-400? " ?
It is on the screenshot that was posted.
I haven't had time to watch all these videos yet but just watched Fabian's one and he said AF was excellent even with the 1.4TCs. He said with 2x he noticed some slowdown and less consistency but was testing in forest.
That is what I'd expect anyways.
Fabian shows examples at the end of his video between the two lenses when at the similar focal lengths using different TCs.
Even his example of the 600/2xTC looks impressive but was certainly shot at close distance. May not work as good reaching for far subjects but neither does the 600/4GM/2xTC.
cohenfive wrote:
Kudos to Sony for putting out lenses that Nikon has had on the market for years....
And what the heck is up with Canon? The market clearly wants smaller, lighter, less expensive options for wildlife...
You mean those heavy anchors Nikon has? . The 600mm one with the PF wacky bokeh? . A PF lens heavier than a non PF lens?
I'm glad I waited and didn't jump on the 600PF as I've always been tempted to. Now I can buy a similar lens for significantly cheaper that weighs significantly less and doesn't have PF bokeh. Oh, and best thing is it mounts on a camera that has 30 or 120FPS with RAW precapture and can track a BIF better than any other.
I use the 300+2xTC for wildlife shooting and have enjoyed superb results. Compared to the 600 f6.3 my kit is somewhat heavier but it also has a faster aperture, plus the option of using the 300 bare. Assuming weight and money are not the driving factors, what advantage does the 600 f6.3 provide? Similarly, the 300+1.4TC has a faster aperture and, I would expect, similar image quality to the 400 f4.5, plus greater flexibility as well.
If a shooter does not have a 300 & 2xTC, I could certainly see the case for buying the 600 (in my experience, a 400 prime often isn't enough for wildlife shooting).
Steve
Blueridger wrote:
I use the 300+2xTC for wildlife shooting and have enjoyed superb results. Compared to the 600 f6.3 my kit is somewhat heavier but it also has a faster aperture, plus the option of using the 300 bare. Assuming weight and money are not the driving factors, what advantage does the 600 f6.3 provide? Similarly, the 300+1.4TC has a faster aperture and, I would expect, similar image quality to the 400 f4.5, plus greater flexibility as well.
If a shooter does not have a 300 & 2xTC, I could certainly see the case for buying the 600 (in my experience, a 400 prime often isn't enough for wildlife shooting).
Steve...Show more →
My plan is to keep my 300GM and use it mostly at 300 and 420 going forward.
I will get the 600/6.3 to have a lighter lens AND the biggest advantage for me is having that option to hit 840/9 which I can't do with the 300GM.
But I totally understand that a 300GM user doesn't really need these new lenses as the 300GM is just so good even with the TCs. I do use mine at 600mm 50% or more of the time.
arbitrage wrote:
You mean those heavy anchors Nikon has? . The 600mm one with the PF wacky bokeh? . A PF lens heavier than a non PF lens?
I'm glad I waited and didn't jump on the 600PF as I've always been tempted to. Now I can buy a similar lens for significantly cheaper that weighs significantly less and doesn't have PF bokeh. Oh, and best thing is it mounts on a camera that has 30 or 120FPS with RAW precapture and can track a BIF better than any other.
. The great thing is the A1II works great for travel too! I used the A1II for the airshow in Belgium, and the A1II+A7RVI for citiyscape stuff. Can you imagine lugging those Nikon boat anchors for travel?? Alright, Nikon folks, I am only half joking.
These two lenses being GM-class and still not having integrated TCs despite the seeming suitability of the 600mm design makes me think that the 400 f2.8 and 600 f4 successors may yet not have them still.
I'd like to see the 600mm's performance with the 1.4x TC, preferably here or in non-sponsored flickr galleries. Normally a GM class prime should be able to use it without issue.
I like what has been accomplished with respect to weight. The current generation of Sony teles started with the 300GM and the refresh of the higher models will likely have great weight savings and increased AF performance. Excited to see what comes out next year on that front.
Douglas L wrote:
It was a BUST!! They announced the Gripen, the Lansen and the Viggen (Swedish classic fighter jets), the Dutch F-35, the Belgium F-35 (for both Saturday's sunset show and Sunday's day time show), the Eurofighter Thyphoon, the Tornado, the Red Arrows, They dropped out one by one. Only the Tornato showed up on Saturday's sunset show, It wasn't even the Tornado demo jet, it's just a grey color Tornado from the Luftwaffle. They did send an F-86 Sabre. It was very cloudy, no sunset light at all. The Polish pilot started several fires in the grass area in the airfield when he was shooting fireworks from his plane. I left the Saturday show before it was over. I didn't go on Sunday due to the rainy weather and the lackluster lineup. Very disappointed. I haven't looked at the pictures yet. May have a few keepers.
I am in Delft, Netherlands right now and will tour around the country until Sunday.
Sorry for getting off the topic!
The more I look at it, the more likely I will pick up the new 600. It will be great for travel that involves fights. I have the 2X TC glued on the 300 GM 99% of the time anyway....Show more →
That sucks. Sorry to hear. Hope the rest of your trip goes better
As far as the 600mm f6.3 goes. It’s hard to justify since I already have the 300GM. It’s giving me GAS though 😀
Blueridger wrote:
I use the 300+2xTC for wildlife shooting and have enjoyed superb results. Compared to the 600 f6.3 my kit is somewhat heavier but it also has a faster aperture, plus the option of using the 300 bare. Assuming weight and money are not the driving factors, what advantage does the 600 f6.3 provide? Similarly, the 300+1.4TC has a faster aperture and, I would expect, similar image quality to the 400 f4.5, plus greater flexibility as well.
If a shooter does not have a 300 & 2xTC, I could certainly see the case for buying the 600 (in my experience, a 400 prime often isn't enough for wildlife shooting).
Steve...Show more →
I want to assume that the 600 6.3 will offer better image quality than the 300+2x TC. That remains to be seen. I'm buying the 600 6.3 anyway because I want to go to 840mm. I might sell the 300 if the 600 6.3 is better, because I'm not a multi-lens user.
Andrew CD wrote:
These look great! Good feather detail. And i agree with one of the previous posts, the rendering looks rather nice.
If I may ask a very obvious question:
Have you had an opportunity to compare the 600 with a 300/2.8 + 2xTC and, if so, what did you conclude?
I have had the 300 for several years and find it excellent, most often using it with the 2xTC. But, if the IQ of the 600 is equally good or better and, in particular, if the AF is materially better (how many motors?), for BIF the weight saving is not to be sniffed at (with my rather modest skills, and even given the impressively low weight of the 300/2.8, I’m sure <1kg would make it quite a bit easier to keep the bird in the centre of the frame). Having the option of 840mm without stacking TCs is another factor.
Unfortunately, we do not own the 300mm f/2.8, but we wish we did! It has actually been Wanda's favorite lens recently—we had a loaner for two trips, so we weren't able to make any direct side-by-side comparisons between the 300mm and these new lenses.
Having used the 300mm f/2.8 a few times, it is really fun to shoot with. But as far as I remember, it definitely felt heavier than the new ones. Overall, it's about a 0.5 kg difference, plus teleconverters if you use them. 1 kg telephotos are really mind-blowing—the first time you pick one up and see its size, you naturally expect a much heavier lens. For birds in flight, shooting hanging off decks, and general handholding maneuverability, nothing beats these new releases.
I would always say: try before you buy. That said, I'm certain no one will be disappointed by the optics, and everyone will be impressed by the weight and handling. My everyday lens is a 3 kg one, and I almost never shoot anything in between. Maybe that's part of the reason I was so blown away by their usability.
arbitrage wrote:
It is on the screenshot that was posted.
I haven't had time to watch all these videos yet but just watched Fabian's one and he said AF was excellent even with the 1.4TCs. He said with 2x he noticed some slowdown and less consistency but was testing in forest.
That is what I'd expect anyways.
Fabian shows examples at the end of his video between the two lenses when at the similar focal lengths using different TCs.
Even his example of the 600/2xTC looks impressive but was certainly shot at close distance. May not work as good reaching for far subjects but neither does the 600/4GM/2xTC....Show more →
I think these lenses are going to behave pretty similar to Nikon's 400 (which I have) and 600 (which I tried). Based on price alone I don't think these going to make 300mm obsolete. In Nikon's case 600 is sharper. Christopher frost says 600 has excellent sharpness, but not razon sharp (@ 6:35). He claim it's because of diffraction. May be true. Nikon has only 45MP sensor.
I'm sure AF speed will be way better than Nikon's (Nikon uses STM motor which is slower than their high end lenses) especially with A1II. I think Nikon will still have edge in VR. I'm getting 400 assuming that it'll make excellent 400 and very nice 560 with 1.4x similar to Nikon's. If it's sharper than Nikon's 400, that'll be a bonus.
The only thing compelling about the 600mm f/6.3 is the size and weight. Otherwise, the flexibility of the 400-800 or the 100-400 f/4.5 with 1.4X make them more useful. I find the 100-400 f/4.5 is excellent and handles the 1.4X very well. So my needs from 100-560mm are taken care of with similar apertures to the new offerings. I can only see getting the 600 f/6.3 if it is sharper than the 400-800 at 600 and handles the 1.4X very well. Then it might replace the 400-800mm in my bag.
(look at the pic) which means same thing