Sony 300 GM + 2x TC vs. Nikon 600 PF

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).

Matt N

Matt N

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I'm curious if anyone has seen a comparison of these two configurations? Perhaps not since they are different systems. In the hypothetical situation where someone is a dual system user (Sony and Nikon) and was looking for a lightweight 600mm walk-around lens, there would be a decision there. Obviously the Sony 300 gives you more configuration options, but at a higher price and with more connections. It seems that the weight would be about equal since the TC adds weight, but a Z8 weighs more than an A1.

Based on the sharpness comparisons of the 300GM+2x vs 600 F4 I saw in a different post, it seems that sharpness between that and the Nikon 600pf might be near equal or close enough. I'm particularly interested in other aspects of the IQ, such as bokeh, contrast, AF speed, etc.
 
Member's gallery
I have not used the 600 PF, but as a Sony 600 GM user it was on my short list for a walk-around lens until the 300 GM's specs were released. I compared the on-paper specs (I have not compared optical performance) and found that the weight of the Z8 + 600 PF is within a few grams of the a1 + 300 GM + 2x TC (Sony setup is 66 grams lighter, 2.7%) and the 300's MFD is 2 meters vs. 600 PF's 4 meters.

The 300's versatility, MFD, early reports of its performance with the 2x TC and my prior experience using two different systems made my choice easy. The tiny difference in weight was a bonus. I have not done controlled tests vs. the 600 GM but I have not noticed any problems with AF speed or contrast. In one instance when viewing at 100% the transition from the focus plane to the OOF objects seemed a bit less smooth than the 600 GM would produce, but this was not a controlled test.

I'll let you judge the bokeh at normal viewing for yourself (heron photos with 1.4x TC):

DH100503_web.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


DH100509_web.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


DH100514_web.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


DH100054_web.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


DH100089_web.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


DH100240_web.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


DH201811_web.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


DH201289_web.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.




​
 
Member's gallery
The foreground log in the Spotted Towhee photo above is not as smooth as I'd expect with the 600 GM (same log, different day)

pipmac35.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

​
For myself, the single-system combination of the a1 + either 600 GM or 300 GM + 2x TC provides very significant benefits and the 300's MFD makes it an easy choice for tiny birds.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
It's ironic that we're revisiting a path similar to one I had pursued many years ago, though at the time it was a Canon 1dmkII and a 300 f/2.8 with a 2x TC for WL. Similar thinking as at the time it was a "small, lightweight" combination. Surprisingly, it delivered some really good images as well, though the 600 mm was limiting and it provided good utility as I used the 300 mm for swimming and other sports.
 
Member's gallery
Having owned both the 300GM and 600PF, I found the 600PF to be noticeably better in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc. The two biggest differences were resolving power and AF. You could crop a lot deeper with an acceptable image from the 600PF, or shoot subjects at a further distance. AF was the biggest difference, however I used both lenses on the Z9. Using a native Sony body, YMMV.

The 300 2.8 is certainly good with a 2x, but I think it loses to both the 400 4.5 + 1.4x and 600PF. How significant that difference is, will vary from user to user.

I would not hesitate to use the 300GM + 2x in a pinch, but I wouldn't want to have the TC glued to the lens if that makes sense. I would be willing to use the 300GM + 2x instead of the Sony 200-600 if those were my choices, and I didn't need the zoom flexibility. I have several friends who have made this decision as well.

For me, the biggest advantages of the 300GM are the shorter MFD. 6.6' vs 13.1', and the potential to be "multiple lenses". I think 300 f2.8, 420 f4, and 600 f5.6 are more valuable than 600 f6.3, 840 f9, 1200 f13.

I'm still holding out for Nikon to make their own modern 300 f2.8 which I really hope will have a built in TC. a 300TC + 600TC would be a beautiful combo....
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
Having owned both the 300GM and 600PF, I found the 600PF to be noticeably better in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc. The two biggest differences were resolving power and AF. You could crop a lot deeper with an acceptable image from the 600PF, or shoot subjects at a further distance. AF was the biggest difference, however I used both lenses on the Z9. Using a native Sony body, YMMV.

The 300 2.8 is certainly good with a 2x, but I think it loses to both the 400 4.5 + 1.4x and 600PF. How significant that difference is, will vary from user to user.

I would not hesitate to use the 300GM + 2x in a pinch, but I wouldn't want to have the TC glued to the lens if that makes sense. I would be willing to use the 300GM + 2x instead of the Sony 200-600 if those were my choices, and I didn't need the zoom flexibility. I have several friends who have made this decision as well.

For me, the biggest advantages of the 300GM are the shorter MFD. 6.6' vs 13.1', and the potential to be "multiple lenses". I think 300 f2.8, 420 f4, and 600 f5.6 are more valuable than 600 f6.3, 840 f9, 1200 f13.

I'm still holding out for Nikon to make their own modern 300 f2.8 which I really hope will have a built in TC. a 300TC + 600TC would be a beautiful combo....
Click to expand...
Your report is very useful, I take it that not many will have direct experience with both lenses.
What you say makes perfect sense and is in agreement with optical physics. A 2xTC will álways degrade the IQ of a lens, and the degradation will be most visible when shooting further away and cropping deeper. I can see the sense in adding a TC to a 600mm lens and seeing benefit compared with cropping, but when trying to duplicate the focal length of a bare prime lens by means of adding a 2xTC, there are simply the laws of optical physics that dictate that the bare prime lens is going to have better contrast and better resolution.

That doesn't mean that the 300GM+2xTC cannot produce very nice images obviously...
 
Member's gallery
Doug Herr said:
I don't have a problem with the resolving power
Click to expand...

it's not a problem, it's just not as good as the 600PF in my experience

we're talking about $5K+ lenses in all of this, they're all super good and we're mainly splitting hairs lol

ChrisM said:
Your report is very useful, I take it that not many will have direct experience with both lenses.
What you say makes perfect sense and is in agreement with optical physics. A 2xTC will álways degrade the IQ of a lens, and the degradation will be most visible when shooting further away and cropping deeper. I can see the sense in adding a TC to a 600mm lens and seeing benefit compared with cropping, but when trying to duplicate the focal length of a bare prime lens by means of adding a 2xTC, there are simply the laws of optical physics that dictate that the bare prime lens is going to have better contrast and better resolution.
Click to expand...

yep, pretty much exactly
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for everyone’s thoughts. The reason I’m curious is because I am renting the A9iii and 300 GM & 2x later this month. Ultimately I’m trying to see if the Sony body is better for my wife and I ergonomically and if there is a comparable lens in the 600mm range to Nikon’s options. I like my Z8, but it’s uncomfortable in my hands. I may add either the Nikon 600 PF or the 400 4.5 & TC to my rental, but not both, so I can compare in the field both optics and ergonomics. I do realize that there is a MP difference between the bodies.
 
Member's gallery
Yeah the 300/2x does really well even with heavy crops. But I have no doubt the 600PF would be better without having to use any TCs.

A1_01030-Enhanced-NR-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
A1_01030-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
A1_01030-Enhanced-NR-3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
ChrisM said:
What you say makes perfect sense and is in agreement with optical physics. A 2xTC will álways degrade the IQ of a lens, and the degradation will be most visible when shooting further away and cropping deeper. I can see the sense in adding a TC to a 600mm lens and seeing benefit compared with cropping, but when trying to duplicate the focal length of a bare prime lens by means of adding a 2xTC, there are simply the laws of optical physics that dictate that the bare prime lens is going to have better contrast and better resolution.
Click to expand...
Optical physics also says that a lens with a larger maximum aperture (all else being equal) will out-resolve a lens with a smaller maximum aperture.

That doesn't mean that the 600PF cannot produce very nice images obviously...
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Doug Herr said:
Optical physics also says that a lens with a larger maximum aperture (all else being equal) will out-resolve a lens with a smaller maximum aperture.

That doesn't mean that the 600PF cannot produce very nice images obviously...
Click to expand...
That is absolutely true, and one of the reasons why I would have liked to see a 600mm f5.6 lens myself.
In this case though, don't you agree that the resolution test bank will have the 600PF come out on top?
What is fascinating about the 600PF b.t.w. is its resolution scores wide open, stopping down only makes it worse:

1715709814423.png


That is quite a performance! The Z800mm f6.3, which I personally find a much more interesting lens, does need stopping down to get at its sharpest:

1715709976098.png


Lastly, good sharpening techniques, or simply applying heavier sharpening in post processing, will in many cases obscure raw sharpness differences.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Bringing optical theory into the discussion does nothing to determine which lens can fit more angels on a pinhead. With theoretically perfect lenses they'd be equal at the same aperture, but manufacturing tolerances, flare control, coating efficiency, control of internal reflections and centering all play a role. Neither manufacturer cuts corners with these lenses but there are always compromises in the design and manufacturing process: neither lens is perfect, and there are much more important factors that go into making a pleasing photograph.
 
Member's gallery
silx said:
I really hope Steve does a review as well. I'm currently considering a system swap from omds to either Nikon or Sony and it's going to come down to which lightweight 600mm option...
Click to expand...
Considering all the great stuff posted on the OM system, mind clarifying why you are considering a switch to Nikon or Sony?
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
This all strikes me as a debate over whether a Ferrari or a Corvette can get you to the grocery store faster—all the options are fantastic, and easily capable.

I shot an EF Canon 300/2.8IS for years with a 2x. Results were easily good enough for a 20x30 print. The biggest downside was a reduction in AF speed, and even then I could reliably track anything but swallows and the like. And that was with relatively-primitive DSLR AF.

The Canon 300/2.8IS was a spectacular lens, and easily sharp enough that a 2x isn’t a significant problem. I’m sure the 30-year-newer Sony is notably better.

Surely a 600/5.6 would be be better, but if the 300/2.8 can do the job and produce great results, who cares?

Also, the 600 is harder to shoot at 300mm. :)
 
Member's gallery
Chris K said:
This all strikes me as a debate over whether a Ferrari or a Corvette can get you to the grocery store faster—all the options are fantastic, and easily capable.

I shot an EF Canon 300/2.8IS for years with a 2x. Results were easily good enough for a 20x30 print. The biggest downside was a reduction in AF speed, and even then I could reliably track anything but swallows and the like. And that was with relatively-primitive DSLR AF.

The Canon 300/2.8IS was a spectacular lens, and easily sharp enough that a 2x isn’t a significant problem. I’m sure the 30-year-newer Sony is notably better.

Surely a 600/5.6 would be be better, but if the 300/2.8 can do the job and produce great results, who cares?

Also, the 600 is harder to shoot at 300mm. :)
Click to expand...
I think it’s okay to compare Ferraris and Corvettes, especially if both cars were in there first year (like these lenses), then you wouldn’t have the established track record to know that they are both great.

Comments about the AF tracking is precisely what I’m interested in. In fact hummingbirds and swallows are what I like to shoot and will be a primary use case for me. So if someone said the 300 GM + 2x was plenty sharp but struggled with AF tracking, that’s useful feedback. alternatively, someone could say it’s also great with AF tracking, comparable to the Nikon 600 pf or more to the 400 4.5 + 1.4x TC. It’s all useful information.

Thanks for your feedback on your experiences with other 300s and TCs. Good to hear that other 300s have done well.
 
Member's gallery
I would love to see a Nikon 300mm f2.8 pf lens that is close to weight as the Sony. However for me having 600mm and 840mm is better than 300-600mm as I think 600mm is the sweet spot for most bird photography. The main advantage for the 300mm 2.8 is low light and I would likely use it with the 1.4tc for 420 at f4 often. Most times when taking Shots in very low light I’m at a blind going for small birds that only come out in this time of day and 300mm is simply too short. I have the Nikon 400 f4.5 for this now and it does well. However if I had said 300mm f2.8 and it did well with the 1.4tc I would likely sell the 400 f4.5. I can say the 600pf is wicked sharp and I do agree that if it were a 5.6 you would get even better results. But likely not all that much. The 600pf is a joy to hand hold as is the 400 f4.5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top