arbitrage wrote:
In regards to the exposure, I've found the 2xTC robs more than 2 stops and the 1.4 slightly more than 1 stop. So this may be why the 300/2x is using 1/3 stop higher ISO. I've never done a controlled test of this but I've noticed having to adjust exposure once adding the 2.0TC more than the 2 stops. And of course we don't know the true t-stop of either base lens. The 300 may be a bit slower than 2.8, the 600 may be right on 6.3 or even slightly brighter?
Interesting. I was just testing Nikon vs Sony 400mm and I noticed the moment I put Sony lens (Both on Z8 using Megadap) it was showing a third stop lower. Please don't take it as a Nikon vs Sony issue . I noticed this when I had 300mm too. I kind of agree. The difference in actual picture seems to be less an a third stop. So no big deal.
arbitrage wrote:
In regards to the exposure, I've found the 2xTC robs more than 2 stops and the 1.4 slightly more than 1 stop. So this may be why the 300/2x is using 1/3 stop higher ISO.
More lens surfaces implies more coating to avoid reflections implies less translucency. I find it rather impressive how little light is lost with modern coatings.
And of course we don't know the true t-stop of either base lens. The 300 may be a bit slower than 2.8, the 600 may be right on 6.3 or even slightly brighter?
The 600 is either less than 600 or darker than f6.3 or both. The lens diameter is physically a bit too small to allow both to be up to spec. Same for the naked 300. Probably the same for most modern lenses, I guess.
Your tests mean nothing if you're not comparing bests. That picture is blurry. It isn't showing detail because it isn't in focus. I don't care if you think you got the shot. You missed.
billsnature wrote:
These samples represent the use case. Shot in AFC as that is how I would use the lens. If it's OOF, that isn't my fault. It showed eye detect. I agree it looks a little front focused if you look at background, but if you look at the stick below the feet that should be sharper as its it's closer to camera, but its not. It appears to have a narrower DOF. Both the foreground and background are sharper in the 400-800.
I shot many frames and have been taking random pairs (not best vs best) and no pair so far has shown the 600 1.4x combo better but I will test many more.
I have no interest in manually focused comparisons as that isn't how I shoot....Show more →
billsnature wrote:
Here is the horrible news from my perspective!!!! It looks like the 400-800 at 800 is sharper than the 600 with 1.4X at 840mm. You get a lot more magnification as you can see in the first screen shot, but not more resolution
Ugh! Now I don't know whether to keep it or return it
dfreese wrote:
Your tests mean nothing if you're not comparing bests. That picture is blurry. It isn't showing detail because it isn't in focus. I don't care if you think you got the shot. You missed.
Wow, the arm chair quarterbacks come out in a hurry. Seems like there are some major assumptions being made here to say it is not in focus. Then again, it is a GM. It has to be sharper with the 1.4x than a lowly G zoom lens.
Bill, no good deed goes unpunished! Thanks for the test results.
billsnature wrote:
These samples represent the use case. Shot in AFC as that is how I would use the lens. If it's OOF, that isn't my fault. It showed eye detect. I agree it looks a little front focused if you look at background, but if you look at the stick below the feet that should be sharper as its it's closer to camera, but its not. It appears to have a narrower DOF. Both the foreground and background are sharper in the 400-800.
I shot many frames and have been taking random pairs (not best vs best) and no pair so far has shown the 600 1.4x combo better but I will test many more.
I have no interest in manually focused comparisons as that isn't how I shoot....Show more →
What's the reasoning behind making a big point "horrible news!! 400-800 is better than 600 6.3 + 1.4x" when your only example is one OOF image?
Taking a poor picture/test and saying "if it's OOF that's not my fault" is an interesting choice to say the least. Why make the post at all if you're not willing to put in the work to ensure it's a fair test?
Seems like a smear job against the 600 6.3 in favor of the 400-800.
If the 400-800 is truly better, that's remarkable and would be good to know. But prove it in a real test. Don't fudge the results to make your desired outcome seem supported.
CPWarner wrote:
Wow, the arm chair quarterbacks come out in a hurry. Seems like there are some major assumptions being made here to say it is not in focus. Then again, it is a GM. It has to be sharper with the 1.4x than a lowly G zoom lens.
Bill, no good deed goes unpunished! Thanks for the test results.
What assumptions do you think are being made? Did you look at the images, and do you think the 600 6.3 one is in focus?
I've looked at it on 3 different setups (iPhone, 45" 5K2K monitor, 77" TV) and it's clear as day that it isn't in focus.
So you didn't look at the single image posted that was clearly out of focus where he said horrible news like it was a technical fault and not an out of focus image? okay.
I 100% appreciate everyone who is posting images and love seeing people test equipment, but that was a bad picture.
dfreese wrote:
Your tests mean nothing if you're not comparing bests. That picture is blurry. It isn't showing detail because it isn't in focus. I don't care if you think you got the shot. You missed.
I for one appreciate @billsnature actual use case images *and comments* and not just sharing "bests." The reality is that's how we'll all use the lens...
p.8 #10 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
dfreese wrote:
Dude. Look at that picture. It isn't properly focused. This tells us nothing. The guy right after that posted BIF with the 1.4 that are super sharp. Don't look at one bad Pic amd make assumptions.
I disagree. There is nowhere closer or further than the eyeball that is in as good of focus as the 400-800 crop; the 400-800 simply beat it. This should not be surprising either IMO. Adding a 1.4x is bound to show some loss of fidelity. The reality is the net 840 image is still pretty good, way better than older 800 primes ever offered. That it's not as good as the 400-800 makes the decision of whether to keep the 600 problematic though. It's only real advantage is weight -- but that's at 600mm or 840 and it might be enough reason for some. Me, I'll take zoom flexibility 8-days a week over adding/removing converters, but that's me...
In my own case, I have a very good copy of the 200-600, and it works more than adequately well with the 1.4x; well enough I can use ACR's "super resolution" image doubler and get quite usable net 1680mm FoV images. So for me, I see no reason to buy the 600 prime or the 400 for that matter -- I've already almost got both in one lens that weighs what the two of them combined weighs, and I can have either focal almost instantly, along with 300 or 200 or 500. The only real nits are the double weight and my 400 is a tad slower optically. But it's also keeping my wallet about $6K happier.
The game changer will be if Sony releases an 800/6.3 in this same design family and it meets or exceeds the 400-800...
p.8 #11 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
I normally don’t like to be this aggressive, but can we stop being neurotic about how these lenses perform with teleconverters? I’m a current Nikon shooter looking to make his way back to Sony, and the new 400 and 600 are big reasons for it.
I didn’t think this would be a controversial thing to say, but if you want to shoot something at 800mm then you should probably use an 800mm lens.
I’m more interested in how this 1kg lens performs at 600mm, and so far it has me interested. I do suppose if there is an issue with AF that would be a concern, so any feedback on that would be much more valuable than how it is at 840mm f9.
p.8 #12 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
Third Moon wrote:
I normally don’t like to be this aggressive, but can we stop being neurotic about how these lenses perform with teleconverters? I’m a current Nikon shooter looking to make his way back to Sony, and the new 400 and 600 are big reasons for it.
I didn’t think this would be a controversial thing to say, but if you want to shoot something at 800mm then you should probably use an 800mm lens.
I’m more interested in how this 1kg lens performs at 600mm, and so far it has me interested. I do suppose if there is an issue with AF that would be a concern, so any feedback on that would be much more valuable than how it is at 840mm f9. ...Show more →
I think you'll find yourself in the minority.
Most people looking at these lenses are interested in the TC results so they can compare to existing lenses and focal ranges.
Everyone already knows the lenses are great bare. There's no discussion needed around that.
The 300GM is the current small/lightweight prime king, but it doesn't get to 800mm natively. So lots of people want to see the 400 4.5 + 2x and the 600 6.3 + 1.4x to make that comparison, and against the 200-600 and 400-800.
Similarly, most people will use the 400 4.5 with a 1.4x as a suitable "600mm", if they don't often need 800mm - since it's cheaper than the 600mm 6.3.
The old adage of "if you want to shoot something at 800mm then you should probably use an 800mm lens" isn't the case these days. Proved time and time again, the 300GM + 2x at 600mm and cropped to 800mm, outperforms the 400-800 natively.
For a Nikon user looking to switch, all you need to know is the 400 4.5 and 600 6.3 bare are as good or better than the Nikon equivalents. While being smaller, lighter, and cheaper - and in the 600mms case - having a much better MFD.
The performance with the TC's is pretty much the biggest unknown and potential differentiator here.
All your questions answered easily in what has been posted so far.
p.8 #13 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
Third Moon wrote:
I normally don’t like to be this aggressive, but can we stop being neurotic about how these lenses perform with teleconverters? I’m a current Nikon shooter looking to make his way back to Sony, and the new 400 and 600 are big reasons for it.
I didn’t think this would be a controversial thing to say, but if you want to shoot something at 800mm then you should probably use an 800mm lens.
I’m more interested in how this 1kg lens performs at 600mm, and so far it has me interested. I do suppose if there is an issue with AF that would be a concern, so any feedback on that would be much more valuable than how it is at 840mm f9. ...Show more →
I disagree and let me explain why.
It is often necessary to reach 800mm for good bird photography in many conditions (skittish birds, dangerous or impassable terrain to close distance etc. etc.). It is a valid thing to want to have and with Sony the only other native option so far was the 400-800, which is a very recent lens itself.
GM lenses, especially primes have a great track record of maintaining quality with the 1.4x TC. It is also therefore a valid expectation from a lens of this class.
If the lens doesn't perform well with the 1.4x TC and if the weight is not as important for others as it may be for you, one may well ask "why not the 400-800?" which even has a larger aperture at 800mm.
If it does perform well as is to be expected by the GM label, there is good reason to prefer it over the 400-800. Prime quality, faster aperture at 600mm, lightweight etc.
Also this particular comparison was not really covered well by the myriad of sponsored videos / tests we have seen so far. This is the crux of why there is more interest in this now, now that it is coming into the hands of users.
As I said, it will pass soon. It will reach unsponsored users of different skill levels and we will see plenty of examples and make our own conclusions. I don't see a need for hobbyists to argue over this in an otherwise top quality and civil forum. If you do not like this focus, I am sure the thread will turn towards many wildlife images in a few weeks at most.
p.8 #14 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
umut_h_toprak wrote:
I agree with your thoughts and approach except for one aspect: I think you should take the best-vs-best comparisons and also make a mental note of the keeper rate in bursts even for static subjects. This would allow you to compare both peak performance and focus reliability.
Here is the best of 6 shots from 600 with 1.4X vs a new random sample from 400-800 at 800. 400-800 on left and 600 w 1.4X on right. The 400 to 800 is still sharper. Even when scaled to match size. Notice the background sharpness showing greater DOF in 400-800mm in last image.
Possible explanations:
1) I have the best 400-800 ever made (Could be true. It is stellar)
2) f8 vs f9 is a big deal. Seems unlikely that if falls off a cliff like this but possibly
3) I have a bad copy of the 1.4X TC. Very possible, but looks OK on other lenses.
4) I have a bad copy of 600mm f6.3 (I will look harder at 300GM vs 600 to estimate)
5) 600mm f6.3 doesn't take TC well. This was true for 400mm f2.8 and could be true for this lens. The strange DOF difference could be a clue here
I am hoping others can confirm, but my results aren't way different than some YouTube reviews. Might look closer at longer distance.
400-800 left at 115% and 600mm with 1.4X on Right at 100%
400-800 left at 115% and 600mm with 1.4X on Right at 100%
p.8 #15 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
billsnature wrote:
Just started my evaluation. Many images to process but here are a couple of screen shots to start, and some odd observations.
1) Using manual shutter speed and aperture selection and auto ISO, the 300 GM with 2X TC always used a higher ISO by 1/3 stop than the 600mm f6.3 when both are at f6.3. No idea why, but the deferences in brightness make it hard to assess sharpness. When adjusted they look very similar.
2) in shooting the 400-800 at 800mm it had no problem with eye detect on my mock hummer. At 600mm it struggled at eye detect where the 300/2X and the 600 6.3 did not. All did fine on mock cardinal.
Shots are manual except auto ISO, VR is on, in AFC and medium frame rate. Camera is on a sling or strap style gimbal. This is how I would shoot bird on stick.
More will follow as I process
I included one poorly done uncooperative bird to show bokeh and 100% crop from the 600mm f6.3...Show more →
The 600 looks quite a bit better than the 300+2XTC to my eyes. Not just sharpness/details, but it also looks more natural, without the "pasted on" effect that I do not like about external 2X converters. I think it maintains a better and more natural 3D effect.
I would not put a 1.4 TC on it myself, so I only care about bare performance.
p.8 #16 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
Third Moon wrote:
I didn’t think this would be a controversial thing to say, but if you want to shoot something at 800mm then you should probably use an 800mm lens.
.
When Sony makes a 800mm lens i'll buy it . Until then I'll have to use 600 6.3 with 1.4x TC, like I did when I had the 600 f4.
p.8 #17 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
billsnature wrote:
Here is the best of 6 shots from 600 with 1.4X vs a new random sample from 400-800 at 800. 400-800 on left and 600 w 1.4X on right. The 400 to 800 is still sharper. Even when scaled to match size. Notice the background sharpness showing greater DOF in 400-800mm in last image.
Possible explanations:
1) I have the best 400-800 ever made (Could be true. It is stellar)
2) f8 vs f9 is a big deal. Seems unlikely that if falls off a cliff like this but possibly
3) I have a bad copy of the 1.4X TC. Very possible, but looks OK on other lenses.
4) I have a bad copy of 600mm f6.3 (I will look harder at 300GM vs 600 to estimate)
5) 600mm f6.3 doesn't take TC well. This was true for 400mm f2.8 and could be true for this lens. The strange DOF difference could be a clue here
I am hoping others can confirm, but my results aren't way different than some YouTube reviews. Might look closer at longer distance....Show more →
Thank you for being so thorough with this, I am sure it is helping many people and the community.
I think 5 is the the most plausible out of the possibilities you listed. Over time as others test this we will have a more informed opinion on this.
As for 3, I do wonder if TC copy variability also exists because I am really really unhappy with my 200-600's TC performance whereas some others manage to make it work well somehow.
Congrats for having an excellent 400-800. Don't get rid of it :-)
p.8 #18 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
nmerc_photos wrote:
What's the reasoning behind making a big point "horrible news!! 400-800 is better than 600 6.3 + 1.4x" when your only example is one OOF image?
Taking a poor picture/test and saying "if it's OOF that's not my fault" is an interesting choice to say the least. Why make the post at all if you're not willing to put in the work to ensure it's a fair test?
Seems like a smear job against the 600 6.3 in favor of the 400-800.
If the 400-800 is truly better, that's remarkable and would be good to know. But prove it in a real test. Don't fudge the results to make your desired outcome seem supported.
What assumptions do you think are being made? Did you look at the images, and do you think the 600 6.3 one is in focus?
I've looked at it on 3 different setups (iPhone, 45" 5K2K monitor, 77" TV) and it's clear as day that it isn't in focus....Show more →
WTF dude?
I don't think it is inappropriate to express my surprise and disappointment that a $3700 GM prime with a TC doesn't crush a $2500 G zoom with a 1.4X TC. That's the whole use case!!!
If a $7000 A1 II can't achieve focus on a static object with this lens that is a real problem for Sony, not my skills that seemed just fine with the 400-800.
Do you think I plunked down $3700 just to become an FM celeb by trashing a lens? I so wanted this lens with a 1.4X to beat or at least tie the 400-800. Might be a bad copy. Might be a bad 1.4X TC. Might be a great 600 that sucks with a TC just like the 400 GM is a great 400 that sucks with a TC. It sure isn't a I can't focus problem,
p.8 #19 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
billsnature wrote:
Here is the best of 6 shots from 600 with 1.4X vs a new random sample from 400-800 at 800. 400-800 on left and 600 w 1.4X on right. The 400 to 800 is still sharper. Even when scaled to match size. Notice the background sharpness showing greater DOF in 400-800mm in last image.
Possible explanations:
1) I have the best 400-800 ever made (Could be true. It is stellar)
2) f8 vs f9 is a big deal. Seems unlikely that if falls off a cliff like this but possibly
3) I have a bad copy of the 1.4X TC. Very possible, but looks OK on other lenses.
4) I have a bad copy of 600mm f6.3 (I will look harder at 300GM vs 600 to estimate)
5) 600mm f6.3 doesn't take TC well. This was true for 400mm f2.8 and could be true for this lens. The strange DOF difference could be a clue here
I am hoping others can confirm, but my results aren't way different than some YouTube reviews. Might look closer at longer distance....Show more →
Thanks for taking the time to shoot and post all the comparisons Bill. Really helpful!
As far as the 400-800 goes. I’ve been pretty happy with the sharpness I’ve been able to get at 800mm. I have no idea where my copy falls on the spectrum of variability. But I can’t complain too much
Like you, I was hoping the 600+1.4x to at least match, if not exceed, the 400-800
Hopefully, as more people get their hands on the lens, we’ll start to see if yours is a representative copy. Or if there’s some combination of copy variability going on
p.8 #20 · Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread
billsnature wrote:
WTF dude?
I don't think it is inappropriate to express my surprise and disappointment that a $3700 GM prime with a TC doesn't crush a $2500 G zoom with a 1.4X TC. That's the whole use case!!!
If a $7000 A1 II can't achieve focus on a static object with this lens that is a real problem for Sony, not my skills that seemed just fine with the 400-800.
Do you think I plunked down $3700 just to become an FM celeb by trashing a lens? I so wanted this lens with a 1.4X to beat or at least tie the 400-800. Might be a bad copy. Might be a bad 1.4X TC. Might be a great 600 that sucks with a TC just like the 400 GM is a great 400 that sucks with a TC. It sure isn't a I can't focus problem,
If your tests actually showed what you're stating - I'd have no issue with your surprise and disappointment.
But when you create a heavily flawed "test" and then admit that you didn't make an attempt to make it fair - that's pretty ridiculous.
You can't post an OOF image and draw ANY conclusions, other than user error. It would've taken you what, 3 seconds or less, to get a locked on in focus image to post?
Think about it from anyone else's position. I could go out right now and take the 600GM, point it at a toy bird, miss focus, and then come in here and post "horrible news! the 600GM is worse than every other lens!". In that case, the 600GM has a track record so it would be quickly dismissed, ideally. But in your case, you are one of the fortunate few with the lens in hand - so people are putting stock in your findings.
Your second set of testing is at least not as clearly flawed as the first, so that's progress. I appreciate that.
. I noticed this when I had 300mm too. I kind of agree. The difference in actual picture seems to be less an a third stop. So no big deal.
