seaSharp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
ps09 wrote:
I think a lot of people comment on threads without having used the gear they are commenting on. It serves no purpose.
The 2-6 and a9 were the reasons I switched to Sony after 30+ years with Nikon. After shooting +/- 250k frames of eagles, owls, bears and loons (in action and static) with the a9/a1 and 2-6, I got the 300 2.8. I already had the 600f4 and both tcs. After my first day in the kayak with the 300 and 2x I was astonished at the difference in af accuracy, af acquisition speed and most of all the clarity and "pop" the 300/2x combo created vs the 2-6. I still feel the 2-6 is a marvel for what it is, but the 300gm is the sharpest tele I have shot with in 50 years, I also have the 70-200gmii & 600gm, which are incredible, but the 300 is a razor.
As others have stated, the 300 starts at such a high bar that the degradation affect that tcs have on the 300 is far less obvious than other lenses, I think the 300 takes tcs better than the 600gm and 400gm. I still own the 600gm and I rented the 400gm 3x (not the same copy-I take note of sn when I rent), so I feel safe commenting on how it takes tcs. It's the worst of the 3.
I think the easiest way to come to a conclusion is by looking at your own images, I use a Mac studio and 5k display for my critical editing. Prior to that, I used an iMac. Same display, retina 5k. When I had both the 2-6 and 300, it was immediately obvious which frames were shot with the 300+2x vs 2-6. To me, that is the basis for judging a lens, Shoot them side by side, same day, same time, same subject, same settings. Then, take a look at the images, I not only had a much higher hit rate with the 300/2x but the images required little to no post processing. I always had to tinker with the 2-6 by adding extra contrast or creative sharpening. With the 2-6, you had to work to get out the details, whereas the 300 slaps you in the face with detail. The 300 also provides that dreamy bokeh that is always rougher with a zoom.
If 600 is all that you need and you own a 2-6, I recommend renting a 300 and 2x for a few days. I, and many others, have a 600gm that "sits" unless more than 600mm is needed. Yes, the 600gm is slightly better and a full stop faster, BUT, with the 300 combo I can leave a tripod at home and the mobility of the little lens enables me to be faster on the draw and capture moments I would miss with the heavier, larger lens. I can handhold the 300 and 600, but I can keep the 300 on an erratic subject better than the 600.
As sensors continue to improve and upscaling software improves, we may find that 600 is all we'll ever need since conditions must be absolutely perfect for 800mm and more due to atmospheric distortion/heat waves. There's always a tradeoff/compensation. From my experience, the only downside to the 300gm is it can only get me to 600. I hope the new lens will be comparable to the 300 with 2x mounted, but that's a tall order. If it is, I'll rent it and slap the 1.4 on it and see how things look. I'd love a compact 840mm lens even at f9. I had the 4-8. It is not compact at roughly 1# less than the 600gm. It's sharp, but it was so close to the weight and handling of the 600 that it offered me little since I was at 800 all the time anyway and wasn't taking advantage of the zoom.
Let's hope the rumors are real and the new lenses are awesome!...Show more →
As always, I think there is a fair amount of sample variation out there. I rented an a7R6 and the 300 with the 2X, and while I was super impressed with the performance, it wasn't the sharpness that I found class leading. It was the stabilization. The experience of looking through the viewfinder with the 300 with the teleconverter was terrific, much better than with my 200–600. The sharpness, on the other hand, was just good, not amazing and not clearly better than with the zoom. Bokeh was definitely nicer, though.
The cost is also bit over the top (though understandably in line with its competition). Hopefully the new 600 6.3 will be more affordable as rumored.
|
