200-600G or 300 2.8GM？？How to choose？

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
I owned the Sony 200-600 and the sharpness is outsanding, so if that is your only concern I would not worry about. Obviously a zoom lens is more versatile. However, if it was me (and I had the money and used Sony) I would still get the 300 with extender for two reasons. First reason is the amazing light weight of Sony's new 300 2.8 which is about two pounds lighter than the zoom. (The reason I sold my Sony is due to weight). Second reason is there are times when f2.8 is needed.
 
Member's gallery
Yes IMO the 300GM/2xTC is faster to focus and more consistent with the in focus hit rate when shooting BIF. The IQ may be close in good light. I think the 300GM/2x does better in lower light.

I will caveat this with I don't have my 200-600 anymore and therefore have never had the 200-600 and 300GM side by side. I'm going off my memory of my 200-600. But I know I'd never swap my 300GM for a 200-600.

The 300GM is my favourite lens in a long, long time. Past favs being Canon 400DOII and Nikon 500PF. I find it is far more versatile than the 200-600 as I can make good use of the 300/2.8, 420/4 and of course the 600/5.6. So far my LR processed/published image count is showing that I've been using it at 24%, 30%, 46% respectively. It is much smaller and lighter than the 200-600. Obviously the two main advantages of the 200-600 are price and zoom flexibility. I prefer the option to get a much faster lens even with the annoyance of having to swap TCs, over the zoom flexibility.
 
Member's gallery
I shot with the Sony 200-600 for a number of years as my primary birding lens and now I've switched over to the 300GM, 90% of my shots with the 200-600 were at the long end, I shoot the 300 with the 2X extender about the same percentage.

In terms of overall sharpness when using the 2X extender I would say the 300GM has a slight advantage there, not huge but noticeable. Where I see a bigger difference is in the consistency of the autofocus, it's more consistent than my 200-600 ever was especially when shooting BIF using the A1. It's an expensive lens but I have no regrets switching over to the 300.
 
Member's gallery
Jose Raposo said:
I shot with the Sony 200-600 for a number of years as my primary birding lens and now I've switched over to the 300GM, 90% of my shots with the 200-600 were at the long end, I shoot the 300 with the 2X extender about the same percentage.

In terms of overall sharpness when using the 2X extender I would say the 300GM has a slight advantage there, not huge but noticeable. Where I see a bigger difference is in the consistency of the autofocus, it's more consistent than my 200-600 ever was especially when shooting BIF using the A1. It's an expensive lens but I have no regrets switching over to the 300.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply and have a nice day!:)
 
Member's gallery
Thank you for your reply! I will try it
MrFotoFool said:
I owned the Sony 200-600 and the sharpness is outsanding, so if that is your only concern I would not worry about. Obviously a zoom lens is more versatile. However, if it was me (and I had the money and used Sony) I would still get the 300 with extender for two reasons. First reason is the amazing light weight of Sony's new 300 2.8 which is about two pounds lighter than the zoom. (The reason I sold my Sony is due to weight). Second reason is there are times when f2.8 is needed.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
Jose Raposo said:
I shot with the Sony 200-600 for a number of years as my primary birding lens and now I've switched over to the 300GM, 90% of my shots with the 200-600 were at the long end, I shoot the 300 with the 2X extender about the same percentage.

In terms of overall sharpness when using the 2X extender I would say the 300GM has a slight advantage there, not huge but noticeable. Where I see a bigger difference is in the consistency of the autofocus, it's more consistent than my 200-600 ever was especially when shooting BIF using the A1. It's an expensive lens but I have no regrets switching over to the 300.
Click to expand...
The 300GM is really lightweight, and sometimes the lighter the better!
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
Yes IMO the 300GM/2xTC is faster to focus and more consistent with the in focus hit rate when shooting BIF. The IQ may be close in good light. I think the 300GM/2x does better in lower light.

I will caveat this with I don't have my 200-600 anymore and therefore have never had the 200-600 and 300GM side by side. I'm going off my memory of my 200-600. But I know I'd never swap my 300GM for a 200-600.

The 300GM is my favourite lens in a long, long time. Past favs being Canon 400DOII and Nikon 500PF. I find it is far more versatile than the 200-600 as I can make good use of the 300/2.8, 420/4 and of course the 600/5.6. So far my LR processed/published image count is showing that I've been using it at 24%, 30%, 46% respectively. It is much smaller and lighter than the 200-600. Obviously the two main advantages of the 200-600 are price and zoom flexibility. I prefer the option to get a much faster lens even with the annoyance of having to swap TCs, over the zoom flexibility.
Click to expand...
I mostly shoot near 600 with my 200-600, so I'm curious what're you usually shooting at 300 and 400? Large animals? Environmental shots? Can you shoot small birds like warblers at 300?
 
Member's gallery
From my experience, the 300GM + 2x outperforms the 200-600 in every measurable metric - except for flexibility.

A prime will never be a zoom, and zoom will never be a prime. If there are some situations where you NEED a zoom, the 300 will not be the right choice.

In my life, the only time I NEED a zoom - is when traveling. I keep a 100-400 or 200-600 for that. So in the real world, I would guess most people probably would want both the 200-600 and 300GM and then pick based on the needs of each outing.
 
Member's gallery
One other factor to consider with respect to the 300mm f2.8 with a tc. If the Sony 300mm f2.8 has great bokeh, and if that is one reason you are considering it, adding the tc ahould not impair any background/bokeh. This is from a Nikon shooter with the Nikon 300mm f2.8. If Sony shooters have better info, listen to them.
 
Member's gallery
I owned the 200-600 and sold it recently after purchasing the 300. For all the reasons mentioned above, weight, bokeh, f2.8 capability, AF on BIF along with image quality... I am very happy I made the switch. I would have to agree with Arbitrage...AF seems to do better in low light.

I just packed for a trip and am finding the reduction in size has helped a cramped bag+peli case. If the checked Peli case goes missing with my 600, I feel the 300 plus teles would serve me well on a bird trip. I didn't feel that way when I had the 200-600.
 
Member's gallery
apb80 said:
I mostly shoot near 600 with my 200-600, so I'm curious what're you usually shooting at 300 and 400? Large animals? Environmental shots? Can you shoot small birds like warblers at 300?
Click to expand...
To get an idea of what I use the bare lens for here are some of my 300mm shots over the past 3 months having the lens.
A1_07875-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
A1_07758-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
A1_01797-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
A1_05066-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
A1_05482-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
A1_01330-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
A1_08310-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
A1_05274-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top