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.
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.
All your questions answered easily in what has been posted so far.
Oct 16, 2026 at 10:26 AM
Previous versions of nmerc_photos's message #17124434 « Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread »
