ChrisMak
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread | |
somersettr wrote:
ChrisMak wrote:
nmerc_photos wrote:
Douglas L wrote:
nmerc_photos wrote:
some brutal testing with the Z9 today. harsh light, far distances, deep crops.
the osprey nest is about 300' away from shore and was a tough shot even for a 400TC + 2x
300 2.8 + 2x performed much better than expected, even on a non-native body
Very interesting you would use the Sony 300 +2X TC on a Nikon instead of the Nikon 600 PF. Great shots, BTW.
I've owned both the 300GM and 600PF, but when I initially owned the 300GM I didn't own (and still don't) own any Sony TC's.
I expected the 300GM would suck with a 2x, so I completely disregarded testing it. Once I saw the feedback mainly from Arbitrage, I had to investigate further.
The 300 2.8 is without a doubt much more versatile than the 600PF. The main trade off is subject distance.
The 300 2.8 + 2x seemingly works great if subjects are near MFD. If you're shooting further out - like I tend to be, the 600PF wins in a big way. The 300GM + 2x falls off quite a bit as you try to shoot further out. Which is to be expected. If that wasn't the case - the lens would really be a no-compromise situation.
Ultimately - I haven't decided which 3lb prime will be right for me. 300GM, 400 4.5, or 600PF. Each one has pros and cons.
For me, the 300GM would be excellent for owls and white tails, with occasional close-range birding with TC's.
The 400 4.5 would be okay with owls/deer, a little slower aperture and more range.
The 600PF is great if you live somewhere with a lot of light (I don't), and will give the best images if you're trying to shoot further out.
I think I will probably end up with either the 300GM or 400 4.5...my heart says 300GM, but my wallet says 400 4.5. $6K vs $2K for 1.33 stops of light.
IMO - IQ is very close with all of these options and their TC's - when shooting near MFD.
This is exactly why even the suggestion that the 300GM could replace the 600GM is not realistic at all.
The 600GM gets better, not worse, as you start to shoot at greater distances, whereas the 300GM with 2xTC, if it behaves like ány other prime with a 2xTC, will start to lose quality as you shoot further out.
Only perhaps if you have perfectly still and clean air, without the slightest hint of atmospherics, may it perform acceptably.
I really ran into this for the first time with the Canon 400DOII combined with the 2xTC.
If still a Nikon shooter, the 600PF would be thé way to go, only it is very slow at f6.3 wide open.
The 300GM should have a real benefit when using it with 1.4TC at 420mm f4, but only for relatively close subjects.
I think I will get the 300GM myself, but only as a portable lens option for travel to add to the 600GM.
My question would be about the distance at which the 300GM with 2xTC is still top notch, and at what distance it starts to visibly fall off compared to lenses like the 600GM or Nikon 600PF.
Do you know from a technical perspective what characteristic of the larger lenses make them produce better quality at longer distances? Is this directly a consequence of the larger physical aperture? Or something to do with the teleconverter? I wouldn't have thought that different lenses could be affected differently by atmospheric conditions like heat haze but I must be wrong. Curious to know how it works.
Not really, as I have a technical background, but not in optics, and it is a highly specialized field.
I can guess of course that magnifying an image 2 times is a recipe for vulnarabilities, but all I know for a fact, is that I never have had any success with shooting a lens and 2xTC over distance, and that it get's really bad in bright or harsh light, but sometimes is ok when shooting after dawn or before dusk.
The 600GM however is a true razor when shooting subjects further away, and can stand pretty heavy cropping. Of course it also fails when atmospherics are bad, but it simply does much better at shooting further away. I assume the Nikon Z600PF is also very good.
|
