Rene
Well-known member
Hi is the lens foot of the 300mm the same as the 200-600?
Thank you
Rene
Thank you
Rene
Lens foot Sony FE 300 F2.8
- Thread starter Rene
- Start date
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).
arbitrage
Well-known member
I'm not sure but it certainly looks to be using the same mechanism for removing the foot as the smaller lenses have and not the 4 screws like the 400/600GM lenses.
I couldn't find an actual part number for the foot.
When I compare the detailed photos on B&H it looks like it is the foot from the 100-400....shorter than the foot from the 200-600. I don't remember if the 100-400 and 200-600 had the same mounting size or if the 200-600 had a larger mounting plate??
I couldn't find an actual part number for the foot.
When I compare the detailed photos on B&H it looks like it is the foot from the 100-400....shorter than the foot from the 200-600. I don't remember if the 100-400 and 200-600 had the same mounting size or if the 200-600 had a larger mounting plate??
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Rene
Well-known member
Thanks for that. I thought to order a replacement foot before the lens arrived but will do now when I have the lens in my hands later today, I will also see how it works with the 1.4/2.0 over the weekend
DaveStewart
New member
Unfortunately I can confirm the 200-600mm lens foot does not fit the 300mm f2.8. I have both and tries as soon as my 300mm arrived (yesterday).
arbitrage
Well-known member
Have you tried a foot from 100-400 or 70-200? Curious if those fit? Or is the 300 a larger mounting plate than all of these other lenses?
Rene
Well-known member
I have a replacement foot under my 70-200, I will try later
Just so you all know, super jealous about this lens... Looking forward to seeing photos.
DaveStewart
New member
The dovetail section is larger than the 200-600mm, hence why it will not fit. I don’t have access to any other lenses to cannot try those.
DaveStewart
New member
I will start a thread later on this lens. Suffice to say I am blown away by the sharpness. With the 2x teleconverter it is sharper than the 200-600mm at 600mm, and you get a true 600mm. At the moment I cannot see any difference between the 300mm plus the 2x teleconverter and the bare 600mm f4GM. I will continue testing and put something up later.
Testing is on the A1 so a high res sensor to try to test the limits.
I'm waiting to test an A9iii plus this lens. The A1 isn't comfortable to me. A couple of colleagues (automotive sports) said the same thing.
Rene
Well-known member
I have the A9 III as well as A1 so will definitely try on both cameras with/without converters. I’m literally in a taxi as I just returned from a week in Spain photographing Golden eagle and Wildcat. I used both bodies and really like the A9III despite being only 25mio pixels
The A1 has the features, it's just not comfortable to me. For what I'll shoot with it, less pixels and slightly less dynamic range isn't an issue.
Rene
Well-known member
Rene
Well-known member
I also would like to add: I added the 2x with A9III body and my feeling is is that the AF is really snappy. With A1 still snappy maybe a tad less then with A9III but really I need to go out and try in my local park over the weekend. The lack of weight of the 300 is unbelievable
Last edited:
DaveStewart
New member
Is that version 1 or 2 of the 70-200. Thanks
Rene
Well-known member
Version 2
ChrisM
Well-known member
That sounds very encouraging!
You join the early reviewers that stated that the 300GM takes converters better than any other telephoto lens.
If so, then this is a highly usefull lens to complememt the 600GM, that is fantastic but not always practical.
The 300GM with both converters would be a very versatile package, and f5.6 aperture at 600mm is a very welcome notch above the nowadays standard of f6.3 for non-exotic 600mm lenses, especially when light is not abundant.
On top of that, but that is a personal thing, the 300GM looks incredibly nice.
DaveStewart
New member
It is encouraging- so encouraging that I am re-running the test again just to be sure. At the moment I still cannot see any difference between the 300mm plus converter and the native 600mm gm. I have always been disappointed with teleconverters previously but this is changing my mind. The 300mm with converters may well be my walk around combination moving forwards.
arbitrage
Well-known member
Thanks. I think both versions of the 70-200 and the 100-400 all use the same foot. So that is good news for 300 owners in that there are already options out there.
arbitrage
Well-known member
That is great to hear. I've become less and less of a fan of the Sony TCs over the years. I never use my 2x anymore. Even on the 400/2.8GM.
That said, my main gripe with the TCs (even the 1.4) is not in the raw bench test IQ but in the noticeably lower AF hit rate for critically sharp images.
I wonder if the 300GM is any better in that regard?
My friend should be getting his soon so I hope to borrow it and test it on swallows next month with the TCs.
Lately I've been itching to buy a Z8/600PF to add to the gear bag...but if the 300GM/2xTC has a good AF hit rate I may go that route instead.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
600 GM compared with 300 GM + 2x TC
Not quite 600 GM quality, good enough for my purposes.
New Sony 300mm f2.8GM with TC's
Mark Galer has a very nice review on the new Sony 300mm f2.8GM.One particular remark caught my attention:"I think the sharpness when using th...
www.fredmiranda.com
Not quite 600 GM quality, good enough for my purposes.
ChrisM
Well-known member
It would be a very intersting comparison between the 600PF and the 300GM with 2xTC.
No doubt the razorsharp 600PF will take the prize for resolving power witth ease, but to use it, you not only need to spend €4500 on a Z8, but you also have to be happy shooting it and using the Z8 instead of the A1, and be happy using two systems.
So for me as a Sony user, it is a bit of a dilemma.
The 300GM also has the versatility that the 600PF lacks: e.g. a superb 420mm f4 lens with the 1.4TC, and arguably will have better color. The PF lenses render slightly flat, and if rich color is your preference, I find them a bit austere.
Sure, you can do in post whatever you like, but only up to a certain level and the overall look of the 500PF that I had, was also lacking warm and rich colors in Sony style.
From the samples I have seen so far, the 300GM has great color and contrast, truly GM level.
All in all, however nice the 600PF will no doubt be, I am leaning toward the 300GM with both converters for travel and hiking lightly packed.
Rene
Well-known member
I took a nr of images (with tripod) with the 300mm, bare, with 1.4 and 2.0 on a stationary teddy bear in my back garden, clouds, no sun. I want to point out I don’t do anything scientific, I just wanted to see what the files looked like on both A1/A93.
In my opinion the files look great. Sharp, nice contrast . AF is snappy for me with the 2x as well. I’m more then happy to send them to anyone interested through we transfer. In that case send me a private message with email.
Im happy with my choice but of course others might have a different opinion, my reason for getting the 300 is that I fly a lot for my nature photography in Europe and was getting tired of travelling with heavy kit. Besides I do most of my photography from hides where this lens is ideal and a 600mm is simply pretty useless in most circumstances
Rene de Heer
www.naturepics.co.uk
In my opinion the files look great. Sharp, nice contrast . AF is snappy for me with the 2x as well. I’m more then happy to send them to anyone interested through we transfer. In that case send me a private message with email.
Im happy with my choice but of course others might have a different opinion, my reason for getting the 300 is that I fly a lot for my nature photography in Europe and was getting tired of travelling with heavy kit. Besides I do most of my photography from hides where this lens is ideal and a 600mm is simply pretty useless in most circumstances
Rene de Heer
www.naturepics.co.uk
ChrisM
Well-known member
Your situation resembles mine to a degree. I do most of my birding locally, with peaks during bird migration on the frisian isles, andthe 600GM is the perfect lens for that.
But starting to travel a bit more, I don't enjoy taking such a large and heavy lens along.
I had the 200-600G in the past, but was never happy with the rendering (call it a personal thing) and was hoping Sony would bring a lighter GM lens.
The 300GM unexpectedly may be just what I was hoping for. It is near ideal in versatility, size and weight, and I really like the f5.6 aperture at 600mm, opposed to f6.3
I don't mind if AF is not completely up there with the 600GM, GM style contrast and color are more important for me, and it is good to hear that these are maintained with the TC's.
There is precedent for a bare + tc being as sharp as bare, specifically the Fujifilm 200/2. The lens is as sharp with and without the dedicated (sold with) 1.4x. The catch: it was a perfect lens optically; completely straight line at 1.0 on the MTF for both M and S axis on the 10 cycles/mm.
Rule of thumb has always been for a reduction in contrast/sharpness of about 0.07-0.10 units on the MTF chart for the 1.4x and double that for the 2.0. Thing is, until very recently there weren't many perfect lenses (straight line at 1.0). Now there are, and the rule of thumb doesn't necessarily hold any more.
One of the major reasons for image degradation with the TC is the natural slop in the mounts. I recall that Fuji machined matched mounts for their only white lens. It was a great lens but an overkill because at the time of introduction the bodies couldn't keep up with it.