From my perspective (YMMV), what @sparadise@@ says is spot on. My primary interest is birds, mainly in flight. Since buying the 2.8/300 a year ago, I have not used the 200-600 once (I may sell it).
Where I mostly shoot, in the Scottish Highlands, the birds are often too far away, so 840mm would be nice, but I rarely used the x1.4 with the 200-600 because of both the aperture penalty (Scottish light is rarely like that in Florida ….) and the effect on AF. Whereas I almost always use the x2 with the 300. There is ample evidence in this thread (not least from Geoff ( @arbitrage@@ )) of the superb IQ that can be achieved using it with TCs. So, for now, I am very content with the 2.8/300 + x2 TC and A1 (the only other option now would be a 4/600 …. ).
How do you find the 300+TC AF accuracy vs the 2-6 in that murky Scottish light?
Fair question. I can't give yo a great answer, I'm afraid, simply because (a) I've never tried to make any sort of direct comparison; and (b) as well as buying the 2.8/300, a short while earlier, I also swapped my original A9 for an A1, so I only used the 200-600 on the A1 a very few times, in mid-winter 23/24.
Subjectively, my impression (and it's really no more than that) is that the 300's AF is better (but it's stating the obvious to say that the A1 is far superior to the A9). What I can say, though, with greater certainty, is that the 300's AF seems quicker (which is presumably a function of it having better AF motors). And it's stating the obvious to say that the light gathering is superior.
Sorry I couldn't be more help, and with apologies for not having replied sooner.
Feb 25, 2025 at 05:19 AM
Previous versions of Andrew CD's message #16760509 « Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread »
).