ps09 wrote:
Ok, I'll respectfully state with no disrespect intended - in the DSLR days of auto focus fine tuning, LensAlign (which I personally found to be best) recommended 8' for every 100mm of focal length when testing/calibrating lenses. This is more than likely why Dustin Abbott did his testing outside, as 840mm would require 67.2'. 6.75 meters would be about 22', which is really close to test 800mm.
I guess they had good reasons for AF calibration to be done at medium distance. As far as I remeber in most cases there was also one value/distance which te lens is corrected for. It had to be chosen wisely. Sigma could be corrected for several distances I think, but I might be wrong.
Thankfully, if shotoing at the center - I did not dare to do corner comparison, there should be enough depth of field to compare shots well within. Shooting form 7m away is also not uncommon - waders, common kingfishers from hide etc.
While 20m is alright for mammals, I find that for smaller birds where the fine detail resolution come into play - a shorter test distance is a more likely scenario.
Furthermore testing outside can introduce atmospheric distortion, well below 20m if conditions are not favourable. While I agree that a shooting distance could be longer, finding such a space indoors is quite a bit of chellenge. I also wish I had a proper target at hand. Liek a siemens star or something similar. It is a home-made test anyway, not intended for MTF calculations it should rather give a feeling what kind of lens these are.
biggles2002 wrote:
I preciate your effort to make this clearer for us but why not share those raw files? .......
I mean "REEL" how in "hell" should that be representive view of what the difference is between these lenses?
You have center crops in the other thread.
I think it is easier to view prepared center crops rather than share full raws.
Any test in a video is flawed in a way. One would need a proper test bench which none of us - amateours have. If you think there are too many flaws, just ignore the results.
Thanks for your effort. I am rarely 20' from my subjects with the 600mm, and for good reason. At 600mm and f/8, focused at 20', the resulting depth of field is 19"11" to 20'1". The eye will be in focus and little else.
michal.narozny wrote:
You have center crops in the other thread.
I think it is easier to view prepared center crops rather than share full raws.
Any test in a video is flawed in a way. One would need a proper test bench which none of us - amateours have. If you think there are too many flaws, just ignore the results.
"I think it is easier to view prepared center crops rather than share full raws."
I prefer Raw files and edit myself against someone "prepared" these for me if you know what I mean
ps09 wrote:
Thanks for your effort. I am rarely 20' from my subjects with the 600mm, and for good reason. At 600mm and f/8, focused at 20', the resulting depth of field is 19"11" to 20'1". The eye will be in focus and little else.
ps09 wrote:
I am a nobody, but I'm first on a list at a shop that will get first batch copies, so I'm guessing mid October. I will be out of town on a landscape trip when it arrives at home, so I won't be able to do anything until late October. By then, I'm sure others will post logical reviews. Right now it's all a bit of a joke. If I were an "influencer" that was sent a copy, and didn't have the lenses people want to see compared, I'd rent them from LR. Who, that shoots Sony tiles or zooms, does not have the Sony tcs. I'm beginning to think many of these "influencers" don't shoot the gear on a regular basis. Jan's review (and Steve Perry) are what we need to see. ...Show more →
How many of these reviewers said that the 400-800 images at f/8 800mm would be soft and basically unusable and that you need to shoot at f/10 to get the best sharpness and contrast ? May as well just get the Canon 800mm f/11 at that point - considerably smaller and lighter.
From all the reviews and comparisons I've seen so far, including my own experience with the 300mm, 1.4x and 2x TCs and the 200-600mm (I've sold it), they alll seem very close in performance at equivalent focal lengths.
Whether one has a slight edge in sharpness is a difference that will likely be erased in the real world by lens copy variation and atmospheric conditions. It's just about compromises: weight, price, zoom flexibility, and max aperture.
I think the 600mm f/6.3 would make sense for me since it's the focal lenght I use most often. But I'm struggling with the idea of selling the 300mm GM at a big discount because it works so well with both 1.4x and 2x TCs, and it's unreal at 300mm f/2.8.
Fboss wrote:
From all the reviews and comparisons I've seen so far, including my own experience with the 300mm, 1.4x and 2x TCs and the 200-600mm (I've sold it), they alll seem very close in performance at equivalent focal lengths.
Whether one has a slight edge in sharpness is a difference that will likely be erased in the real world by lens copy variation and atmospheric conditions. It's just about compromises: weight, price, zoom flexibility, and max aperture.
I think the 600mm f/6.3 would make sense for me since it's the focal lenght I use most often. But I'm struggling with the idea of selling the 300mm GM at a big discount because it works so well with both 1.4x and 2x TCs, and it's unreal at 300mm f/2.8....Show more →
I can't see the 300mm GM taking a huge hit $ wise. Outside of a macro lens, this is the sharpest lens I've shot with and you get the advantage of F/2.8, F/4.0, and F/5.6 in a single lens combo with little to no hit to image sharpness/quality. It's an amazing lens!
I've looked at the Raw files that Michal provided in Capture One software.
* 400/4.5 with 2.0xTC vs 600/6.3 with 1.4xTC. the 400 has a tad better contrast/sharpness.
* 400/4.5 with 1.4xTC vs 600/6.3 they seem equal.
Fboss wrote:
From all the reviews and comparisons I've seen so far, including my own experience with the 300mm, 1.4x and 2x TCs and the 200-600mm (I've sold it), they alll seem very close in performance at equivalent focal lengths.
Whether one has a slight edge in sharpness is a difference that will likely be erased in the real world by lens copy variation and atmospheric conditions. It's just about compromises: weight, price, zoom flexibility, and max aperture.
I think the 600mm f/6.3 would make sense for me since it's the focal lenght I use most often. But I'm struggling with the idea of selling the 300mm GM at a big discount because it works so well with both 1.4x and 2x TCs, and it's unreal at 300mm f/2.8....Show more →
If you can, keep the 300. It is amazing. You have already TCs which makes 600 even a better companion to 300. If you cannot - it is a tough choice. I used 300 few times, and it always had that wow factor.
hatch1921 wrote:
I can't see the 300mm GM taking a huge hit $ wise. Outside of a macro lens, this is the sharpest lens I've shot with and you get the advantage of F/2.8, F/4.0, and F/5.6 in a single lens combo with little to no hit to image sharpness/quality. It's an amazing lens!
I do hope the new 600 is a killer lens.
Hatch
I just tested the 300mm f/2.8 stopped down to f/5.6 against the old 100-400 at 300mm and f/5.6. I can definitely see a difference in the center of the frame—I photographed Euro banknotes from about 5 meters away—but I also tested more distant subjects between 30 and 100 meters.
The difference is visible, yes, but it’s not as large as I would have liked or hoped for.
I dunno. There are 5 sitting on the for sale section right now. I saw one sell for 4400 the other day and one is sitting at 4800 on a sort of local FB page. I think this complicates the equation for used lenses.
hatch1921 wrote:
I can't see the 300mm GM taking a huge hit $ wise. Outside of a macro lens, this is the sharpest lens I've shot with and you get the advantage of F/2.8, F/4.0, and F/5.6 in a single lens combo with little to no hit to image sharpness/quality. It's an amazing lens!
dfreese wrote:
I dunno. There are 5 sitting on the for sale section right now. I saw one sell for 4400 the other day and one is sitting at 4800 on a sort of local FB page. I think this complicates the equation for used lenses.
Well... that's great for the buyers, bad for the sellers I'll be hanging on to mine for some time. It's a fantastic lens!
I think it is probably the path I'm going to choose. I like the idea of the 420 f/4 a lot. It just seems like a real nice way to get three lenses. I just want to see comparisons on AF performance and all that.
hatch1921 wrote:
Well... that's great for the buyers, bad for the sellers I'll be hanging on to mine for some time. It's a fantastic lens!
We're fortunate to have so many choices at relatively affordable prices. Five years ago when myself and many of my friends switched to Sony I never imagined all these options would be available.
I've been into photography for less than 4 months. I have no business being here.
CJMiller wrote:
We're fortunate to have so many choices at relatively affordable prices. Five years ago when myself and many of my friends switched to Sony I never imagined all these options would be available.
dfreese wrote:
I think it is probably the path I'm going to choose. I like the idea of the 420 f/4 a lot. It just seems like a real nice way to get three lenses. I just want to see comparisons on AF performance and all that.
My old eyes say the 300 with the 1.4x is like shooting the bare lens. I honestly don't have to sharpen my images and the AF is still blazing fast. The 2x, it's fast as well but my idea of "fast" might differ from yours. I'm thinking 300 with TCs, 600 f/6.3 and 400-800 when I need the reach. Sell the 200-600 and possibly the 100-400. No complaints... Sony is killing it with their lenses.
it should rather give a feeling what kind of lens these are. 