arbitrage wrote:
If these two lenses end up being true then I think you can officially put the nail in the coffin for your 600/5.6 or 400/4.
You may have to switch brands….oh wait….no brand makes those two lenses
I guess you may just want to buy an RF camera and buy another 400DOII.
But really it is 1/3 of a stop. That is so meaningless these days. I could post denoised shots at 10,000 vs 12,800 ISO and no one would be able to tell which is which. Once you are back down in more common wildlife ISO range like 1600-4000 and are comparing 1/3 stop ISO differences it would be impossible to tell.
Otherwise, just get a 300GM/2xTC. There you will have your 420/4 and 600/5.6. Does the 2xTC sacrifice something? Sure, it does but it starts off with such a high bar of a bare lens (certainly the best bare lens I’ve ever owned) that all the 2xTC does is brings it back down to a very good 600/5.6. AF can keep up with every type of BIF I’ve pointed it at including passerines and swallows. IQ won’t match the bare 600GM but it isn’t too far off.
Whether Sony chooses to make a 1.5kg 600/5.6 or a 1kg 600/6.3 doesn’t really matter to me. But I’d probably only buy the 600/6.3 because the weight would add some advantage over the 300/2x where as the 600/5.6 would just be the same (even if it has some IQ/AF advantage). I mean maybe if it was like bare 300GM IQ and AF then I’d consider it and just use the 300GM at 300/420 but I think I’d prefer the weight savings of the 600/6.3 (which may also end up with IQ/AF advantage over the 300/2x)....Show more →
Of course I can't resist a good opportunity to lament the glaring lack of actual high-quality middle segment lenses, but in reality I've been over this for quite a while now. I've welded my 600GM to myself mentally, and to my A1 physically.
I set it to f5 and suffer the size and weight.
I know it is a meaningless discussion, but I cannot get myself into the camp of "it is only a third of a stop and makes no difference" however much I would like to. So if Canon also refuses in line with Nikon and Sony to make a lens that does 600mm f5.6 I might eventually end up with the 300GM and a 2xTC when the size and weight of the 600GM at last do become too cumbersome.
freaklikeme wrote:
Conceptually, they're interesting. I'm pretty happy with my OEM super-ts (original 100-400GM and 300/2.8 + extenders) and I'd be hard-pressed to spend time on making a switch. At this point, the only thing that could get me to spend GM money is if Sony gives us a sub-two kg 500/4 as impressive as the 300.
nmerc_photos wrote:
He did mention in his video, that he knows the specs are real because he already had that info prior to the FM post.
He already was making a video and was going to release it tomorrow, then this FM post happened, prompting him to make the new video.
So that part is encouraging I'd hope?
The only thing he seems to discount is whether the prices can be that cheap.
If the price/specs come in as rumored, that should be a knock out of the park against Nikon. All I hope is that they didn't trade too much quality for the weight/price savings. I'd prefer more expensive lenses that are optically superior to the Nikon, rather than cheaper ones that aren't as good in the name of price/weight savings....Show more →
So far, G designated lenses have been very close or nearly on par with GM lenses in terms of quality. They are just slower. My best guess is that these lenses will be on par or even better than the Nikkor PF lenses.
For me: The real value of a 600mm f6.3 (or 5.6) over the 300mm GM with 2X TC is the ability to get to 840mm with a 1.4X TC. If Sony made a dedicated 2.5X or 3X TC that only worked with the 300mm GM, I would buy that in a heartbeat.
So, the real buy/no buy decision on the new 600mm is Min focus distance/magnification and image quality with 1.4X TC in my mind. The 1kg vs 1.5kg is not relevant, so I would have liked f5.6.
nmerc_photos wrote:
Same boat here. I haven't tried the 100-400 f4.5 yet, but I don't think it really solves much for me.
300GM + 600 f6.3 would mean two distinct lenses for two situations. I'd probably always keep the 1.4x on the 600 f6.3 for 840mm f9 and it would be great.
I've long said that if there was a system with the 300mm f2.8 and the 800mm f6.3, that would be the endgame for me.
I did try 300GM + 800PF on Nikon bodies, but the Nikon AF was hard to tolerate on native glass, let alone on adapted glass. So this may be the next best thing, and all in the same ecosystem. ...Show more →
I have a feeling you will be eyeing the Nikon 120-300/2.8 TC along with their 800/6.3 on a radically improved Z9II
The only downgrade with that Nikon vs the 300GM will be size and weight. It would depend how much one values the 300GM size and weight vs the much better versatility of a 120-300 with a built-in 1.4
My 300mm f/2.8 performs very well with teleconverters, but the success rate drops when shooting birds in flight—especially with the 2x TC—and while its sharpness effectively becomes that of a good 600mm f/5.6, I don't think it quite matches the level of the upcoming 600mm f/6.3.
I compared the Z8 with the 600mm PF against the A1 with the 300mm f/2.8 plus 2x TC (at 600mm f/5.6).
The native 600mm PF was sharper and more responsive, simply because it is a native lens.
However, the 300mm f/2.8 setup—cropped to a 600mm equivalent—actually outperforms the other two configurations and is faster.
I really think that if the two new lenses weigh barely 1kg, a lot of people will switch to Sony.
arbitrage wrote:
I have a feeling you will be eyeing the Nikon 120-300/2.8 TC along with their 800/6.3 on a radically improved Z9II
The only downgrade with that Nikon vs the 300GM will be size and weight. It would depend how much one values the 300GM size and weight vs the much better versatility of a 120-300 with a built-in 1.4
Z9 II is definitely a contender if they can catch up and surpass Sony/Canon in terms of AF / FPS, and finally add precapture.
The 120-300TC is squarely of zero interest to me. Too big, expensive, and heavy and not focal lengths of value to me.
I'd love to get back to a 400TC / 800PF setup with a good body though!
I think it's more likely that we see Sony with a 400TC / 600TC before a Nikon body catches up and entices me though. We shall see.
Agility is very important. That make sense. If you shoot birds most of the time, 400mm is kind of beginning FL. With 50MP sensor we have enough room to crop. I used to use Nikon 400/4.5 a lot before getting Sony setup for birds in action. But I use 300 with 1.4x most of the time. That's why I was thinking of 100-400/4.5 and now the new 400/4.5
As for the OSS. Jan (The aussie reviewer) mention this in many of his videos. Cameras stabilize based on actual FL of the lens. Not the reported FL with TC. This is one reason he doesn't like TCs. As someone use Nikon 800mm a lot, the 300mm+2x has really bad OSS. Lens alone is great. But with TC I have to agree with Jan. With 1.4x it's ok, with 2X, it's hard to frame the pic compared to some of the latest Nikons. If you shoot only BIF, probably it doesn't matter.
arbitrage wrote:
I think mainly because it is smaller and lighter. Which is the main reason I was using the 300GM so often over my 600GM.
I find it more agile to get on and track a BIF because of the size/weight.
I mainly thought the 100-400/4.5 would serve me well in the kayak as I could use the zoom to change between different sized subjects. But I still only had a couple instances where I needed to zoom back. If I’d cut off some wings in those instances with the prime I probably wouldn’t have cared.
As far as stabilization I don’t think you will notice an difference if you are comparing the 300GM/2x vs the 100-400/1.4x. I don’t know for sure if there is any difference in the baseline stabilization of these lenses. If there isn’t then once you are at the same focal length 560/600 it should be about equal. What TC you use to get there shouldn’t make any difference.
I’ve found I can keep a BIF better centred in my frame with the 300 because of the better agility I get from it....Show more →
Jemini wrote:
Agility is very important. That make sense. If you shoot birds most of the time, 400mm is kind of beginning FL. With 50MP sensor we have enough room to crop. I used to use Nikon 400/4.5 a lot before getting Sony setup for birds in action. But I use 300 with 1.4x most of the time. That's why I was thinking of 100-400/4.5 and now the new 400/4.5
As for the OSS. Jan (The aussie reviewer) mention this in many of his videos. Cameras stabilize based on actual FL of the lens. Not the reported FL with TC. This is one reason he doesn't like TCs. As someone use Nikon 800mm a lot, the 300mm+2x has really bad OSS. Lens alone is great. But with TC I have to agree with Jan. With 1.4x it's ok, with 2X, it's hard to frame the pic compared to some of the latest Nikons. If you shoot only BIF, probably it doesn't matter.
You can go into the Sony menu and set the focal length you want it to stabilize for but I don’t think that makes much difference.
Sony has poor stabilization in general compared to Nikon and Canon so I’m not surprised the 800PF looks way more stable.
I’ll try to have a closer look at how stable things look between the 300/2x and the 100-400/1.4x. I haven’t noticed a difference but haven’t really gone looking for one either. So maybe the 100-400 will have better OSS??
