duncang wrote: speedmaster20d wrote: Andrew CD wrote:
Would anyone care to comment (or speculate) on how the 300/2.8 + 2x TC is might compare with the 200-600 (in terms of both AF performance and image quality)?
My main interest is wildlife, birds in particular (both static and BIF). A 300m is obviously not really the thing for BIF, but I’m really quite tempted by the thought of a 600mm f/5.6 that’s this lightweight — I do sometimes hike a fair distance. And Mark Galer’s review and images (albeit processed) seem quite promising.
Thanks!
(PS. I’ve pretty much decided against switching to Nikon, so please don’t mention the 600PF … But, for what it’s worth, my tentative answer to @ChrisMak@@@ ‘s question is: yes, I think Sony have done exactly that! )
The AF should be faster as the 300 is fitted with dual XD motors the same kind that is used in 600 f/4GM. The 2-6 uses lower cost linear motors. This will impact the initial AF acquisition speed. The tracking performance is mostly function of the camera and will be similar the prime combo has 1/3 stop faster aperture but that shouldn’t have much impact on the A1.
Sharpness is the main factor, it needs to be clearly sharper with the 2X than the zoom (which isn’t bad itself) to justify the price for BIF. I am quite happy with the 2X on my 600 GM and I hope it is similar or better with the 300.
300mm is too short for general BIF so it will be mostly glued to the 2X for this application unless shooting large birds at close range.
Hope to receive one of these early next year and test it out
I DO wish Sony had more high-end telephoto options like Nikon does. 600 f/5.6 PF/DO would be a nice compliment to the 600 f/4 GM. even a 400 f/4 would be great as it will extend to 800 f/8.... 300 f/2.8 is the "least" optimal of the fast primes for general BIF (special circumstances aside) but it is better than nothing ... especially when price is "relatively" reasonable these days
Would you mind posting a link to some RAW files taken with the 600 + 2xTC. I would be interested in seeing how that holds up. With the 1.4TC the 600 seems excellent - not sure I could tell the difference even on a 5K display.
The images Mark Galer posted with the 300 and 2xTC didn't look particularly good - but hard to tell anything without the RAW files.
My 600 GM + 2X produces sharp results in my hands, of course if you do an MTF measurement in the lab you will see a difference compared to the bare lens for sure but in the field, the sharpness is not a limiting factor in my experience and I am quite happy with the end results.
Here are some example with 100% unsharpened crop from RAW as it appears in capture one pro. These are typical examples, I didn't have time to go through and find the "sharpest" examples since I literally have thousands of frames at 1200mm. I am sure I have had shots that came out sharper than these but for me these are acceptable. I included flight shots so you can get an idea about the AF.
I find the AF to be still excellent even with the 2X, unlike the old DSLR's the mirrorless AF is not so much dependent on the maximum aperture of the lens, so I have not really noticed a large degradation like the old DSLRs. Of course in very low light there is a hit but generally speaking in my hands I am not limited by the AF in most conditions. I can't say the AF tracking with the 2x is any worse than without it.
Please note making sharp shots at 1200mm is much much harder than 600mm because of the various effects such atmospheric dispersion. Heat shimmers, small camera movement etc. all are magnified four times at 1200mm compared to 600mm. I use my lenses handhold, handholding at longer FL also needs more care. I think some of the complaints about the 600 + 2X might be fixed with better technique/better conditions.
Overall the field conditions must be ideal for shooting at such distances, but often it is not ideal. In fact in some locations it is just not possible to use 1200mm because of the heat shimmers that are present all day long. There are some locations inland where I would never use my 2X. It will be very disappointing.
overall I find the 2X (1200mm) a valuable tool in my toolkit and one of the reasons I liked the Sony system to being with.
Naturally with 300mm + 2X one would be shooting at closer range so some of these effects will be less dominant and therefore overall percentage of sharp images will be higher.
I hope that per pixel 300 + 2X will be equal or better than these. I ordered the lens already and will test it out next year.
duncang wrote: speedmaster20d wrote: Andrew CD wrote:
Would anyone care to comment (or speculate) on how the 300/2.8 + 2x TC is might compare with the 200-600 (in terms of both AF performance and image quality)?
My main interest is wildlife, birds in particular (both static and BIF). A 300m is obviously not really the thing for BIF, but I’m really quite tempted by the thought of a 600mm f/5.6 that’s this lightweight — I do sometimes hike a fair distance. And Mark Galer’s review and images (albeit processed) seem quite promising.
Thanks!
(PS. I’ve pretty much decided against switching to Nikon, so please don’t mention the 600PF … But, for what it’s worth, my tentative answer to @ChrisMak@@@ ‘s question is: yes, I think Sony have done exactly that! )
The AF should be faster as the 300 is fitted with dual XD motors the same kind that is used in 600 f/4GM. The 2-6 uses lower cost linear motors. This will impact the initial AF acquisition speed. The tracking performance is mostly function of the camera and will be similar the prime combo has 1/3 stop faster aperture but that shouldn’t have much impact on the A1.
Sharpness is the main factor, it needs to be clearly sharper with the 2X than the zoom (which isn’t bad itself) to justify the price for BIF. I am quite happy with the 2X on my 600 GM and I hope it is similar or better with the 300.
300mm is too short for general BIF so it will be mostly glued to the 2X for this application unless shooting large birds at close range.
Hope to receive one of these early next year and test it out
I DO wish Sony had more high-end telephoto options like Nikon does. 600 f/5.6 PF/DO would be a nice compliment to the 600 f/4 GM. even a 400 f/4 would be great as it will extend to 800 f/8.... 300 f/2.8 is the "least" optimal of the fast primes for general BIF (special circumstances aside) but it is better than nothing ... especially when price is "relatively" reasonable these days
Would you mind posting a link to some RAW files taken with the 600 + 2xTC. I would be interested in seeing how that holds up. With the 1.4TC the 600 seems excellent - not sure I could tell the difference even on a 5K display.
The images Mark Galer posted with the 300 and 2xTC didn't look particularly good - but hard to tell anything without the RAW files.
My 600 GM + 2X produces sharp results in my hands, of course if you do an MTF measurement in the lab you will see a difference compared to the bare lens for sure but in the field, the sharpness is not a limiting factor in my experience and I am quite happy with the end results.
Here are some example with 100% unsharpened crop from RAW as it appears in capture one pro. These are typical examples, I didn't have time to go through and find the "sharpest" examples since I literally have thousands of frames at 1200mm. I am sure I have had shots that came out sharper than these but for me these are acceptable. I included flight shots so you can get an idea about the AF.
I find the AF to be still excellent even with the 2X, unlike the old DSLR's the mirrorless AF is not so much dependent on the maximum aperture of the lens, so I have not really noticed a large degradation like the old DSLRs. Of course in very low light there is a hit but generally speaking in my hands I am not limited by the AF in most conditions. I can't say the AF tracking with the 2x is any worse than without it.
Please note making sharp shots at 1200mm is much much harder than 600mm because of the various effects such atmospheric dispersion. Heat shimmers, small camera movement etc. all are magnified four times at 1200mm compared to 600mm. I use my lenses handhold, handholding at longer FL also needs more care. I think some of the complaints about the 600 + 2X might be fixed with better technique/better conditions.
Overall the field conditions must be ideal for shooting at such distances, but often it is not ideal. In fact is some location it is just not possible to use 1200mm because of the heat shimmers that are present all day long. There are some locations inland where I would never use my 2X.
overall I find the 2X (1200mm) a valuable tool in my toolkit and one of the reasons I liked the Sony system to being with.
Naturally with 300mm + 2X one would be shooting at closer range so some of these effects will be less dominant and therefore overall percentage of sharp images will be higher.
I hope that per pixel 300 + 2X will be equal or better than these. I ordered the lens already and will test it out next year.
duncang wrote: speedmaster20d wrote: Andrew CD wrote:
Would anyone care to comment (or speculate) on how the 300/2.8 + 2x TC is might compare with the 200-600 (in terms of both AF performance and image quality)?
My main interest is wildlife, birds in particular (both static and BIF). A 300m is obviously not really the thing for BIF, but I’m really quite tempted by the thought of a 600mm f/5.6 that’s this lightweight — I do sometimes hike a fair distance. And Mark Galer’s review and images (albeit processed) seem quite promising.
Thanks!
(PS. I’ve pretty much decided against switching to Nikon, so please don’t mention the 600PF … But, for what it’s worth, my tentative answer to @ChrisMak@@@ ‘s question is: yes, I think Sony have done exactly that! )
The AF should be faster as the 300 is fitted with dual XD motors the same kind that is used in 600 f/4GM. The 2-6 uses lower cost linear motors. This will impact the initial AF acquisition speed. The tracking performance is mostly function of the camera and will be similar the prime combo has 1/3 stop faster aperture but that shouldn’t have much impact on the A1.
Sharpness is the main factor, it needs to be clearly sharper with the 2X than the zoom (which isn’t bad itself) to justify the price for BIF. I am quite happy with the 2X on my 600 GM and I hope it is similar or better with the 300.
300mm is too short for general BIF so it will be mostly glued to the 2X for this application unless shooting large birds at close range.
Hope to receive one of these early next year and test it out
I DO wish Sony had more high-end telephoto options like Nikon does. 600 f/5.6 PF/DO would be a nice compliment to the 600 f/4 GM. even a 400 f/4 would be great as it will extend to 800 f/8.... 300 f/2.8 is the "least" optimal of the fast primes for general BIF (special circumstances aside) but it is better than nothing ... especially when price is "relatively" reasonable these days
Would you mind posting a link to some RAW files taken with the 600 + 2xTC. I would be interested in seeing how that holds up. With the 1.4TC the 600 seems excellent - not sure I could tell the difference even on a 5K display.
The images Mark Galer posted with the 300 and 2xTC didn't look particularly good - but hard to tell anything without the RAW files.
My 600 GM + 2X produces sharp results in my hands, of course if you do an MTF measurement in the lab you will see a difference compared to the bare lens for sure but in the field, the sharpness is not a limiting factor in my experience and I am quite happy with the end results.
Here are some example with 100% unsharpened crop from RAW as it appears in capture one pro. These are typical examples, I didn't have time to go through and find the "sharpest" examples since I literally have thousands of frames at 1200mm. I am sure I have had shots that came out sharper than these but for me these are acceptable. I included flight shots so you can get an idea about the AF.
I find the AF to be still excellent even with the 2X, unlike the old DSLR's the mirrorless AF is not so much dependent on the maximum aperture of the lens, so I have not really noticed a large degradation like the old DSLRs. Of course in very low light there is a hit but generally speaking in my hands I am not limited by the AF in most conditions. I can't say the AF tracking with the 2x is any worse than without it.
Please note making sharp shots at 1200mm is much much harder than 600mm because of the various effects such atmospheric dispersion. Heat shimmers, small camera movement etc. all are magnified four times at 1200mm compared to 600mm. I use my lenses handhold, handholding at longer FL also needs more care. I think some of the complaints about the 600 + 2X might be fixed with better technique/better conditions.
Overall the filed conditions must be ideal for shooting at such distances, but often it is not ideal. In fact is some location it is just not possible to use 1200mm because of the heat shimmers that are present all day long. There are some locations inland where I would never use my 2X.
overall I find the 2X (1200mm) a valuable tool in my toolkit and one of the reasons I liked the Sony system to being with.
Naturally with 300mm + 2X one would be shooting at closer range so some of these effects will be less dominant and therefore overall percentage of sharp images will be higher.
I hope that per pixel 300 + 2X will be equal or better than these. I ordered the lens already and will test it out next year.
duncang wrote: speedmaster20d wrote: Andrew CD wrote:
Would anyone care to comment (or speculate) on how the 300/2.8 + 2x TC is might compare with the 200-600 (in terms of both AF performance and image quality)?
My main interest is wildlife, birds in particular (both static and BIF). A 300m is obviously not really the thing for BIF, but I’m really quite tempted by the thought of a 600mm f/5.6 that’s this lightweight — I do sometimes hike a fair distance. And Mark Galer’s review and images (albeit processed) seem quite promising.
Thanks!
(PS. I’ve pretty much decided against switching to Nikon, so please don’t mention the 600PF … But, for what it’s worth, my tentative answer to @ChrisMak@@@ ‘s question is: yes, I think Sony have done exactly that! )
The AF should be faster as the 300 is fitted with dual XD motors the same kind that is used in 600 f/4GM. The 2-6 uses lower cost linear motors. This will impact the initial AF acquisition speed. The tracking performance is mostly function of the camera and will be similar the prime combo has 1/3 stop faster aperture but that shouldn’t have much impact on the A1.
Sharpness is the main factor, it needs to be clearly sharper with the 2X than the zoom (which isn’t bad itself) to justify the price for BIF. I am quite happy with the 2X on my 600 GM and I hope it is similar or better with the 300.
300mm is too short for general BIF so it will be mostly glued to the 2X for this application unless shooting large birds at close range.
Hope to receive one of these early next year and test it out
I DO wish Sony had more high-end telephoto options like Nikon does. 600 f/5.6 PF/DO would be a nice compliment to the 600 f/4 GM. even a 400 f/4 would be great as it will extend to 800 f/8.... 300 f/2.8 is the "least" optimal of the fast primes for general BIF (special circumstances aside) but it is better than nothing ... especially when price is "relatively" reasonable these days
Would you mind posting a link to some RAW files taken with the 600 + 2xTC. I would be interested in seeing how that holds up. With the 1.4TC the 600 seems excellent - not sure I could tell the difference even on a 5K display.
The images Mark Galer posted with the 300 and 2xTC didn't look particularly good - but hard to tell anything without the RAW files.
My 600 GM + 2X produces sharp results in my hand, of course if you do an MTF measurement in the lab you will see a difference compared to the bare lens but in the flied the sharpness is not a limiting factor in my experience and I am quite happy with the end results.
Here are some example with 100% unsharpened crop from RAW as it appears in capture one pro. These are typical examples, I didn't have time to go through and find the "sharpest" examples since I literally have thousands of frames at 1200mm. I am sure I have had shots that came out sharper than these but for me these are acceptable. I included flight shots so you can get an idea about the AF.
I find the AF to be still excellent even with the 2X, unlike the old DSLR's the mirrorless AF is not so much dependent on the maximum aperture of the lens, so I have not really noticed a large degradation like the old DSLRs. Of course in very low light there is a hit but generally speaking in my hands I am not limited by the AF in most conditions. I can't say the AF tracking with the 2x is any worse than without it.
Please note making sharp shots at 1200mm is much much harder than 600mm because of the various effects such atmospheric dispersion. Heat shimmers, small camera movement etc. all are magnified four times at 1200mm compared to 600mm. I use my lenses handhold, handholding at longer FL also needs more care. I think some of the complaints about the 600 + 2X might be fixed with better technique/better conditions.
Overall the filed conditions must be ideal for shooting at such distances, but often it is not ideal. In fact is some location it is just not possible to use 1200mm because of the heat shimmers that are present all day long. There are some locations inland where I would never use my 2X.
overall I find the 2X (1200mm) a valuable tool in my toolkit and one of the reasons I liked the Sony system to being with.
Naturally with 300mm + 2X one would be shooting at closer range so some of these effects will be less dominant and therefore overall percentage of sharp images will be higher.
I hope that per pixel 300 + 2X will be equal or better than these. I ordered the lens already and will test it out next year.
duncang wrote: speedmaster20d wrote: Andrew CD wrote:
Would anyone care to comment (or speculate) on how the 300/2.8 + 2x TC is might compare with the 200-600 (in terms of both AF performance and image quality)?
My main interest is wildlife, birds in particular (both static and BIF). A 300m is obviously not really the thing for BIF, but I’m really quite tempted by the thought of a 600mm f/5.6 that’s this lightweight — I do sometimes hike a fair distance. And Mark Galer’s review and images (albeit processed) seem quite promising.
Thanks!
(PS. I’ve pretty much decided against switching to Nikon, so please don’t mention the 600PF … But, for what it’s worth, my tentative answer to @ChrisMak@@@ ‘s question is: yes, I think Sony have done exactly that! )
The AF should be faster as the 300 is fitted with dual XD motors the same kind that is used in 600 f/4GM. The 2-6 uses lower cost linear motors. This will impact the initial AF acquisition speed. The tracking performance is mostly function of the camera and will be similar the prime combo has 1/3 stop faster aperture but that shouldn’t have much impact on the A1.
Sharpness is the main factor, it needs to be clearly sharper with the 2X than the zoom (which isn’t bad itself) to justify the price for BIF. I am quite happy with the 2X on my 600 GM and I hope it is similar or better with the 300.
300mm is too short for general BIF so it will be mostly glued to the 2X for this application unless shooting large birds at close range.
Hope to receive one of these early next year and test it out
I DO wish Sony had more high-end telephoto options like Nikon does. 600 f/5.6 PF/DO would be a nice compliment to the 600 f/4 GM. even a 400 f/4 would be great as it will extend to 800 f/8.... 300 f/2.8 is the "least" optimal of the fast primes for general BIF (special circumstances aside) but it is better than nothing ... especially when price is "relatively" reasonable these days
Would you mind posting a link to some RAW files taken with the 600 + 2xTC. I would be interested in seeing how that holds up. With the 1.4TC the 600 seems excellent - not sure I could tell the difference even on a 5K display.
The images Mark Galer posted with the 300 and 2xTC didn't look particularly good - but hard to tell anything without the RAW files.
My 600 GM + 2X produces sharp results in my hand, of course if you do an MTF measurement in the lab you will see a difference compared to the bare lens but in the filed the sharpness is not a limiting factor in my experience.
Here are some example with 100% crop unsharpened crop from RAW as it appears in capture one pro. these are typical examples, I have had shots that came out sharper than these but for me these are acceptable. I included flight shots so you can get an idea about AF.
I find the AF to be still excellent even with the 2X, unlike the old DSLR's the mirrorless AF is not so much dependent on the maximum aperture of the lens, so I have not really noticed a large degradation like the old DSLRs. Of course in very low light there is a hit but generally speaking in my hands I am not limited by the AF. I can't say the AF tracking with the 2x is any worse than without it.
Please note making sharp shots at 1200mm is much harder than 600mm because of various effects such atmospheric dispersion. Heat shimmers, small camera movement etc. all are magnified four times at 1200mm compared to 600mm. I use my lenses handhold, handling at longer FL also needs more care. I think some of the complaints about the 600 + 2X might be fixed with better technique.
Overall the conditions must be ideal for shooting at such distances, but often it is not ideal. In fact is some location it is just not possible to use 1200mm because of the heat shimmers that are present all day long. there are some locations inland where I would never use my 2X.
overall I find the 2X (1200mm) a valuable tool in my toolkit and one of the reasons I liked the Sony system to being with.
Naturally with 300mm + 2X one would be shooting at closer range so some of these effects will be less dominant and therefore overall percentage of sharp images will be higher.
Nov 10, 2023 at 12:26 PM
Previous versions of speedmaster20d's message #16389808 « New Sony 300mm f2.8GM with TC's »
But, for what it’s worth, my tentative answer to @
)