True story - I wouldn't have my wonderful 300GM if CJMiller didn't chicken out when the store called me to say the first copy they got, (the one they put aside for me <for him> was in. I ended up buying it and some of my finest images taken in 50 years were taken with the 300! Thanks Chris!
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.
That’s good info. I have a very sharp copy of the 100-400/4.5-5.6 and although I’m positive the 300GM is sharper, I would only purchase it for the 2.8 aperture.
I think it's really important to know what bodies people are using when "testing" and "comparing" lenses. A lens that looks good on a 24mp camera will not look as good on 50+ MP.
Yeah. My 66mp is different than other cameras. There are too many variables for one test to make sense.
ps09 wrote:
I think it's really important to know what bodies people are using when "testing" and "comparing" lenses. A lens that looks good on a 24mp camera will not look as good on 50+ MP.
Right I keep returning to the idea that the 200-600 is more like 560 at the long end. We all want true 600mm performance and actual or close f6.3 aperture.
mudlake wrote:
That’s good info. I have a very sharp copy of the 100-400/4.5-5.6 and although I’m positive the 300GM is sharper, I would only purchase it for the 2.8 aperture.
I think regardless of the body they were tested on and how they were tested, the salient fact is both these lenses are darn good, and actually remain reasonably impressive with the 2x --at least optically-- which is saying something. Performance appears impressive enough that any potential users of either have little to loose by buying one.
ps09 wrote:
I think it's really important to know what bodies people are using when "testing" and "comparing" lenses. A lens that looks good on a 24mp camera will not look as good on 50+ MP.
While it's true that high-res sensors can benefit from sharper lenses, I still want to remind everyone that the total system resolution is a product of (lens MTF x sensor MTF). What this means is that ANY lens, without exception, it will deliver more resolution on a 50mp sensor vs a 24mp one because MTF is always less than 1.
Personally, I never experienced a lens that "looked good on 24mp but not as good on 50mp" in real life. My Canon L-lenses were slightly blurry wide-open and razor sharp at f/5.6 on the Canon 10D with a 8MP sensor. After several body upgrades, the same lenses now were delivering more resolution, but again, they looked slightly blurry wide-open and razor sharp at f/5.6 on the Canon 5D IV 33MP. Currently I shoot with the 24mp Nikon Zf and the 50mp A1 II with almost exclusively E-mount glass adapted to the Zf, and none of my 20+ lenses look good on the 24mp Nikon, but not as good on the 50mp Sony.
ps09 wrote:
sorry, I meant Lege Artis take them out and report back.
You're funny.😉
You did notice that this is about sharpness, right? At least, that's what I was posting about.
When it comes to AF performance and tracking,
I can definitely confirm that the 300mm f/2.8 is way ahead. It's also better than the new 100-400mm f/4.5, and even with a 1.4x teleconverter, it still outperforms the new zoom—both in terms of optical performance and AF performance/tracking.
michal.narozny wrote:
Hey everyone, this took a bit longer than expected!
I’ve also put together a Reel with the results. If you have a second, a thumbs up or a repost would mean the world—it really makes a huge difference for smaller creators.
Justin Stone wrote:
Right I keep returning to the idea that the 200-600 is more like 560 at the long end. We all want true 600mm performance and actual or close f6.3 aperture.
I do not think 200-600 is 560 at long end. It most likely is very cloe to 600, but at infinity, at which lensesare measured and tested (or in real case - far way).
The breathing is another issue, often in real case scenario of course, at close distances the focal length shortens. I agree it is a noticable effect.
Justin Stone wrote:
Right I keep returning to the idea that the 200-600 is more like 560 at the long end. We all want true 600mm performance and actual or close f6.3 aperture.
The 200-600 is more like 560mm near MFD. But at MFD, are you really zoomed in at 600mm? Only very small subjects will fit in the frame, and for those subjects, the 0.2× magnification is probably more of a limiting factor. At infinity, the 200-600 is a true 600mm, and between infinity and MFD, the effective focal length is somewhere between 560mm and 600mm.
michal.narozny wrote:
I do not think 200-600 is 560 at long end. It most likely is very cloe to 600, but at infinity, at which lensesare measured and tested (or in real case - far way).
The breathing is another issue, often in real case scenario of course, at close distances the focal length shortens. I agree it is a noticable effect.
This is a comparison of 70-350 at 350 crop mode (525mm) and 200-600 at 600mm from same distance. Obviously 70-350 file is smaller. I just resized to same size. I guess the distance was around 50 feet (15-20 meters) which is a normal shooting distance for birds and small animals.
IMO, 200-600 is around 560 in normal shooting distance.
(PS : I think the top one is 70-350, I don't remember. I don't have original files)
Lege Artis wrote:
I can definitely confirm that the 300mm f/2.8 is way ahead. It's also better than the new 100-400mm f/4.5, and even with a 1.4x teleconverter, it still outperforms the new zoom—both in terms of optical performance and AF performance/tracking.
Tested on the A7R VI and A1 II. Satisfied?
Not what I found. I have both those lenses and both of those bodies, the 100-400 f4.5 versus the 300 + 1.4X was too close to call even when blown up to ridiculous proportions.
rd4tile wrote:
Not what I found. I have both those lenses and both of those bodies, the 100-400 f4.5 versus the 300 + 1.4X was too close to call even when blown up to ridiculous proportions.
My assessment would agree with yours. They are so close in my backyard IQ tests and the AF is so similar that I have no real way to tell. My gut gives the edge to the 300GM/1.4TC for AF but it is a meaningless difference when you factor everything else into the equation of nailing a fast BIF shot. I do still find the 300/1.4TC more agile to shoot a fast BIF with than the larger/heavier 100-400.
The results should certainly be comparable when photographing subjects moving in a predictable manner.
However, I tested the cameras and lenses on barn swallows hunting over my local pond, and in that situation the result clearly favored the prime—even with the 1.4x teleconverter, although the difference was no longer quite as pronounced as without it.
That’s been my experience regarding AF/tracking performance.
When comparing the two lenses, I keep noticing that the center is in focus, but the lens also has an area close to the center, as well as the edges of the frame. In those areas, the optical performance clearly favors the 300mm f/2.8 GM, even with the 1.4x teleconverter. Again, that’s just my experience.
If I only had to judge the center of the frame, the old 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6 would still be perfectly adequate. 🤷♂️
michal.narozny wrote:
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.
I could keep the 300 and both TCs. The main thing that makes me consider the new 600mm is the weight. I know I wouldn't get better pictures, and it wouldn't really help with carrying it in a bag since the 2 lenses are exactly the same length. (well the 300 + TC is a bit longer, but it doesn't make a difference in my bag)
was in. I ended up buying it and some of my finest images taken in 50 years were taken with the 300! Thanks Chris!