gdanmitchell wrote:
This is part of what happens when the search for ANY difference between samples and the urge to hype them into “GREAT” and “WORSE” categories runs rampant.
In all too many cases:
1. Tiny differences that amount to essentially nothing in real world photography are presented to the gullible as evidence that one option “blows the other out of the water.” Ain’t so.
2. An obsession with classifying things that are not identical as either better or worse. Sometimes two things that are different are merely… different. Not every difference can be resolved to one thing being better than the other and/or (as below) the meaning of the differences is contextual.
3. A single parameter is focused on obsessively. “Lens A rubs Lens B in the dirt due to its amazing corner performance!!!,” in addition to usually being hyperbole ignores the functional capabilities of the lenses. For example, if A is a prime and B is a zoom, that small increment of optical difference is likely swamped by the utility of the zoom for at least some photographers.
From all appearances and evidence, the lenses in these comparisons are actually all excellent. You would not choose one over the other because of the little optical performance differences being described here — you would make the choice among excellent options based on how each option functionally best fits your intended use....Show more →
Which is why I said they are pretty close and both play well with the 1.4x.
I would recommend that you be a little more careful on quoting people when you say things like this. Your quoting of me misrepresents what I said and the tone of what I said. So go back and read it again. My point was that the comparisons made so far are back and forth. So to be clear, as you seem to want to misquote me, I am saying both are very high quality lenses and both seem to handle the 1.4x very well. I have not seen test images with the Sony 2x yet and would like to see that.
kaldur wrote:
Interesting, though it wasn't my conclusion.
A comment to the 600mm video goes "Thanks for the amazing review! I specifically compared the resolution of the FE 600mm GM with that of the FE 400mm GM + 1.4× teleconverter in your previous video, and I noticed that the FE 400mm GM + 1.4× teleconverter combination actually appears sharper from the center all the way to the corners, which is very impressive."
At the timestamps I referred to, one would be forgiven to have the first impression that the 400+tc is better. It looks to have more contrast (crunchier). I don't know how that came to be, there are a bunch of possibilities. The blurring has a bit of a digital look to it, so the visual difference might have no bearing on the lenses at all. As said before, without Dustins help it is hard to be sure about any comparison across different videos.
and D Abbot has responded to it with "I'm going to release a video that explores that a little more."
What I love about this forum is the many conversations, viewpoints, speculations, and how spirited some of these replies come across. This morning, for no other reason than not wanting to dig through all 22 pages, I asked Claude to summarize the conversations and categorize them or bullet point some of the key insights and discussions.
Hatch
I'm bemused you actually took my claim about the 2x slower AF based simply on the AF motor count seriously. You did see the smiley at the end of the sentence right? You do understand humour right?
Yes I got the aperture size wrong as I based it on the calculation I did a few days earlier comparing the Sigma 500 f/5.6 and Sony 400 f/4.5 and simply forgot.
The 600 indeed gathers more light than the 400.
When you either scale up the 400mm shot to 600mm or crop to the same FoV an ISO 800 shot on the 400mm will have ~ log2(1.5^2) = 1.16 (aligning with the ~15% more light gathering) worse noise so will actually look worse than the ISO 1600 shot from the 600mm. Let's call it a wash, no one will notice ~1/6 stop difference in noise. The 1.4x TC is an optical version of cropping or scaling. This is physics.
The 400mm is only better if you are not FL limited and can fill the frame with the subject so the 1 stop less ISO is of real benefit.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm bemused you actually took my claim about the 2x slower AF based simply on the AF motor count seriously. You did see the smiley at the end of the sentence right? You do understand humour right?
Yes I got the aperture size wrong as I based it on the calculation I did a few days earlier comparing the Sigma 500 f/5.6 and Sony 400 f/4.5 and simply forgot.
The 600 indeed gathers more light than the 400.
When you either scale up the 400mm shot to 600mm or crop to the same FoV an ISO 800 shot on the 400mm will have ~ log2(1.5^2) = 1.16 (aligning with the ~15% more light gathering) worse noise so will actually look worse than the ISO 1600 shot from the 600mm. Let's call it a wash, no one will notice ~1/6 stop difference in noise. The 1.4x TC is an optical version of cropping or scaling. This is physics.
The 400mm is only better if you are not FL limited and can fill the frame with the subject so the 1 stop less ISO is of real benefit....Show more →
Not me sir, AI / Claude... I just asked it to summarize the 22 pages. When you all get into the math and physics ... my eyes glaze over and I skip those conversations. Way too technical for me to participate in. I'm more interested in seeing shots (when available) taken with the lenses in real world conditions.
...I have not seen test images with the Sony 2x yet and would like to see that.
Then go to the french Youtuber Damien Bernal and his video. Below the video there is a download link at Wetransfer for RAW files made with the 400 & 600 pure as well with TC.
There is a shot of a heron at 1200mm where you can count every single hair. For your convenience I post the direct links below. I did't check the 400 RAW but I read that these pics are not so well done like the 600. But I also assume that both will be tack sharp.
When you all get into the math and physics ... my eyes glaze over and I skip those conversations. Way too technical for me to participate in. I'm more interested in seeing shots (when available) taken with the lenses in real world conditions.