Those 300/2x vs 600 look so close. Yes I'd give the win to the 600 but they are way too similar to matter.
All that is going to matter is the AF performance. I really hope the lack of TCs will give the 600 a bigger advantage than it has in the IQ department.
I still will buy the 600 just to have that 840/9 option. But the 300GM is impressing once again in the IQ department.
I can tell a difference between the 600 6.3 and 300+2x TC which makes me feel good about ordering 600 6.3, and if its noticeable near MFD it should be more pronounced difference at distance? Yeah all the talk about MFD, i don't get it, if your shooting birds, how often are you within even 5m of a bird? I can sometimes get close to that if i go ninja creep mode, or get lucky but more often 5-10m range and beyond. Of course for small birds ideally you want to be within 10m but thats not often the case. But now i might have to sell for 300 for sure lol.
arbitrage wrote:
Those 300/2x vs 600 look so close. Yes I'd give the win to the 600 but they are way too similar to matter.
All that is going to matter is the AF performance. I really hope the lack of TCs will give the 600 a bigger advantage than it has in the IQ department.
I still will buy the 600 just to have that 840/9 option. But the 300GM is impressing once again in the IQ department.
Was debating about the 2 lenses and after watching this video , I decided to go with the 400mm
Based on my experience , anything longer than 600mm would encounter atmospheric interferences so I hardly shoot beyond that range
On my recent Ecuador birding trip the 300mm + both TCs suffice
The 400mm is lighter , cheaper , and allows me a 800mm reach with 2X and 1200mm at crop mode if needed (Software enlargement could come to the rescue if need more res)
I value the brighter aperture to the extra reach (Owls need light!!!)
You can go longer with 400mm but you can't get shorter with 600mm
I could buy both but for my international travels I prefer to carry only 1 or 2 lenses at most (the 300mm is a must + 1 more)
Great time for birding IMHO
Of course YMMV
deevee wrote:
Was debating about the 2 lenses and after watching this video , I decided to go with the 400mm
Based on my experience , anything longer than 600mm would encounter atmospheric interferences so I hardly shoot beyond that range
On my recent Ecuador birding trip the 300mm + both TCs suffice
The 400mm is lighter , cheaper , and allows me a 800mm reach with 2X and 1200mm at crop mode if needed (Software enlargement could come to the rescue if need more res)
I value the brighter aperture to the extra reach (Owls need light!!!)
I could buy both but for my international travels I prefer to carry only 1 or 2 lenses at most (the 300mm is a must + 1 more)
Great time for birding IMHO
Of course YMMV ...Show more →
I've used a 600/4 with 1.4x quite a bit in Ecuador in the 2020s. The effect of atmosphere is dependent on distance. If you are fairly close for a teenager or other small bird it's plenty sharp, unlike using a 500/4 for a full body shot of a giraffe in the Mara that looks like a wavy mirage.
If the 400/4.5 with the 1.4x is as good as the 600/6.3 (unlikely) it would be more versatile for sure. I really need to see what it does on the a7rVI, but I'm leaning towards the 600/6.3 if I'm not doing the small birds. 600mm is longer than 560mm.
Interesting video discussing about the merits of both lenses vs the zooms and the 300mm, comparing lens design (basically the same lens) , and comparing the 400mm to Nikon design and why the Sony is lighter
Also prediction on the next 400mm 2.8 and 600mm f4
A bit nerdy but quite educational (full youtube version will have English caption)
A full comparo between 400mm + 1.4TC vs 600mm
400mm F4.5 GM + 1.4× 600mm F6.3 GM
Effective focal length 560mm 600mm
Max aperture f/6.3 f/6.3
Length ~276 mm / 10.9" 263 mm / 10.35"
Lens weight 994 g 995 g
TC weight 167 g —
Total weight ~1,161 g / 2.56 lb 995 g / 2.19 lb
Diameter 108 mm 108 mm
Price $2,699 + ~$550 $3,699
I ordered the 400mm f/4.5 for my A7R 6; it will give me a 600mm equivalent at 28 MP in APS-C mode and a 400mm shot at 67 MP.
I considered the 600mm f/6.3, but the 400mm won out due to its price and versatility.
I already own the 300mm f/2.8 along with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.
I’m hoping the 400mm f/4.5 performs similarly to the 300mm f/2.8 with the 1.4x TC.
The 2x TC with the 300mm is decent, but I never use it; I prefer using APS-C mode on the 300mm f/2.8 or the 420mm f/4 setup.
The current issue with my 420mm f/4 setup (using the 1.4x TC) is that video autofocus in Super 35 mode at 120fps doesn't work as well; I experience focus loss on moving subjects. On the other hand, the 300mm f/2.8 on its own works much better at 120fps in Super 35 mode.
I hope the 400mm f/4.5 will perform just as well without a teleconverter.
Weight is a major factor for me; I’m going to compare the two systems, and if the new 400mm f/4.5 matches the 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC, I’ll probably sell the 300mm f/2.8 😅—even though it’ll be hard to part with.
But weight is crucial for hiking in the Alps.
I think deliveries in Europe will start next week.
valmofab wrote:
I ordered the 400mm f/4.5 for my A7R 6; it will give me a 600mm equivalent at 28 MP in APS-C mode and a 400mm shot at 67 MP.
I considered the 600mm f/6.3, but the 400mm won out due to its price and versatility.
I already own the 300mm f/2.8 along with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.
I’m hoping the 400mm f/4.5 performs similarly to the 300mm f/2.8 with the 1.4x TC.
The 2x TC with the 300mm is decent, but I never use it; I prefer using APS-C mode on the 300mm f/2.8 or the 420mm f/4 setup.
The current issue with my 420mm f/4 setup (using the 1.4x TC) is that video autofocus in Super 35 mode at 120fps doesn't work as well; I experience focus loss on moving subjects. On the other hand, the 300mm f/2.8 on its own works much better at 120fps in Super 35 mode.
I hope the 400mm f/4.5 will perform just as well without a teleconverter.
Weight is a major factor for me; I’m going to compare the two systems, and if the new 400mm f/4.5 matches the 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x TC, I’ll probably sell the 300mm f/2.8 😅—even though it’ll be hard to part with.
But weight is crucial for hiking in the Alps.
I think deliveries in Europe will start next week. ...Show more →
Fair. Seems like a loss of potential on closer subjects, but I guess I get it.
EB-1 wrote:
Sorry to interject, but the file sizes are much smaller with the a7rVI set to "APS-C S35: On" so the buffer runs far longer before filling.
dfreese wrote:
Why use apsc mode and not just crop?
I always use apsc mode when shooting things like small birds when I’m at a distance and know I’m going to crop more anyway later. No reason to shoot full frame, large images when I’m going to crop 70-80% later.
I don't use APS-C crop, just pointing it out. I'd much rather have an APS-H type of crop like 1D IV so ~40MP rather than ~29MP. That would be enough sometimes and still 60% of the file sizes.
I suppose. Just feels less flexible if something gets close.
mudlake wrote:
I always use apsc mode when shooting things like small birds when I’m at a distance and know I’m going to crop more anyway later. No reason to shoot full frame, large images when I’m going to crop 70-80% later.
I do APSC mode a lot since it saves a lot of disk space and I know the photo will be cropped anyway ....Kind of poor man's extra reach if you will
Max 900mm with my 300 + 2xTC
WIth the 400 + 2X, I'll get 1200mm for free , WoW
No need to get a crop camera
deevee wrote:
I do APSC mode a lot since it saves a lot of disk space and I know the photo will be cropped anyway ....Kind of poor man's extra reach if you will
Max 900mm with my 300 + 2xTC
WIth the 400 + 2X, I'll get 1200mm for free , WoW
No need to get a crop camera
Do you guys also adjust ISO and aperture for focal equivalency when you switch to APSC? Asking for a friend.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Do you guys also adjust ISO and aperture for focal equivalency when you switch to APSC? Asking for a friend.
Hey Jack. That’s too much for me to worry about. 🙂
