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

[macwalter]

to my knowledge the Nikon 300mm f2.8 is an older lens and quite heavy and I doubt it will compare favorably to the new lenses , especially the z mounts. The Sony 300mm f2.8 offers some hope of a better option in really low light with enough reach that isn’t too big and expensive for us mere mortals though it is not cheap by any means. One thing that Steve has managed to convince me of is that for birds, 400mm is really the lower limit of reach one needs for good quality images in many cases. In the dslr world it was hard for me to get beyond this until the 500pf came out. Then that was pretty much as far out as I could go. The 1.4tc would work but I always felt the IQ dropped a bit too much. With the z system I can now get all the way out to 840mm and even 1200mm in a pinch with good results using the 600pf and both TCs. All in a very usable hand hold able weight that I could afford.

 

[TurtleCat]

On this detail, the Nikon F mount 300 mm f2 .8 is no longer available to purchase new in the UK.

It was replaced with the 120-300 f2.8 zoom.

 

[Roy]

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.

I may be prejudiced against TCs but they have their uses.
A 300mm with a TC will never match a prime 600mm - especially the PF.
The new 600 PF is light and even handholdable for video - my 600 f4 is more of a struggle..

 

[macwalter]

I did hear the focus breathing on the 600pf was quite high and hence not so great for video. It is a very sharp lens. I doubt any lens especially with a 2x tc will be as sharp. The 300 Sony will be at f5.6 so close in that regard.

 

[nmerc_photos]

coming back in to update with more testing

today I spent some time again with the 300GM + 2x, on a Nikon Z9.

The 300 2.8 + 2x seemingly works great if subjects are near MFD. If you're shooting further out - like I tend to be, the 600PF wins in a big way. The 300GM + 2x falls off quite a bit as you try to shoot further out. Which is to be expected. If that wasn't the case - the lens would really be a no-compromise situation.

If you shoot mainly close subjects, at 300mm or 420mm - the 300GM is the obvious choice. If you need a bit more focal length - and you might need to still crop, the choice gets harder.

Ultimately - I haven't decided which 3lb prime will be right for me. 300GM, 400 4.5, or 600PF. Each one has pros and cons.

For me, the 300GM would be excellent for owls and white tails, with occasional close-range birding with TC's.

The 400 4.5 would be okay with owls/deer, a little slower aperture and more range.

The 600PF is great if you live somewhere with a lot of light (I don't), and will give the best images if you're trying to shoot further out.

I think I will probably end up with either the 300GM or 400 4.5...my heart says 300GM, but my wallet says 400 4.5. $6K vs $2K for 1.33 stops of light.

IMO - IQ is very close with all of these options and their TC's - when shooting near MFD.

and although I notice a difference in AF when using the Sony on a Nikon body, it isn't significant enough for me to really consider when making my choice. I was able to shoot swallows in flight without issue. I did change some of my AF settings around since the last time I tried the 300 2.8 though.

some pics from today, Z9 + 300GM + 2x. osprey nest is about 300' away. osprey with goldfish was pretty much right on top of me, but maybe 100' up? hummingbird nest was within 10', swallows were probably 50' - 150' away.

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.

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.

 

[Roy]

coming back in to update with more testing

today I spent some time again with the 300GM + 2x, on a Nikon Z9.

The 300 2.8 + 2x seemingly works great if subjects are near MFD. If you're shooting further out - like I tend to be, the 600PF wins in a big way. The 300GM + 2x falls off quite a bit as you try to shoot further out. Which is to be expected. If that wasn't the case - the lens would really be a no-compromise situation.

If you shoot mainly close subjects, at 300mm or 420mm - the 300GM is the obvious choice. If you need a bit more focal length - and you might need to still crop, the choice gets harder.

Ultimately - I haven't decided which 3lb prime will be right for me. 300GM, 400 4.5, or 600PF. Each one has pros and cons.

For me, the 300GM would be excellent for owls and white tails, with occasional close-range birding with TC's.

The 400 4.5 would be okay with owls/deer, a little slower aperture and more range.

The 600PF is great if you live somewhere with a lot of light (I don't), and will give the best images if you're trying to shoot further out.

I think I will probably end up with either the 300GM or 400 4.5...my heart says 300GM, but my wallet says 400 4.5. $6K vs $2K for 1.33 stops of light.

IMO - IQ is very close with all of these options and their TC's - when shooting near MFD.

and although I notice a difference in AF when using the Sony on a Nikon body, it isn't significant enough for me to really consider when making my choice. I was able to shoot swallows in flight without issue. I did change some of my AF settings around since the last time I tried the 300 2.8 though.

some pics from today, Z9 + 300GM + 2x. osprey nest is about 300' away. osprey with goldfish was pretty much right on top of me, but maybe 100' up? hummingbird nest was within 10', swallows were probably 50' - 150' away.

View attachment 92358View attachment 92359View attachment 92360View attachment 92361View attachment 92362View attachment 92363

If you need a TC so much then maybe its time to get a real 600mm lens ..

 

[nmerc_photos]

If you need a TC so much then maybe its time to get a real 600mm lens ..

precisely, but OP's question was specifically about the merits of the 300 + 2x...

 

[Roy]

precisely, but OP's question was specifically about the merits of the 300 + 2x...

I guess i'm just prejudiced against TCs ..

 

[nmerc_photos]

I guess i'm just prejudiced against TCs ..

I've always had really good luck with TC's. atleast the 1.4x often don't result in noticeable degradation. the 2x are more iffy.

The only lenses I won't use them on are the standard 100-400 and 180/200-600 zooms. and potentially the 600PF/800PF since they start out so slow at f6.3

otherwise - I'm team TC almost always. I should really redownload LR just to see how often I use the internal TC on the 400TC

 

[Roy]

I wish the 600 PF was faster but compared to my 400 and 600 f4 its just so practical and light ...

 

[Chris K]

If you need a TC so much then maybe its time to get a real 600mm lens ..

I shot a Canon 300/28 IS with a 2x for years. It was a compromise compared to the 500/4 or 600/4, but I could handhold it all day and pack it in a normal bag.

Everyone’s needs are different. The 300/2.8 appears to be no slouch. And when you CAN shoot it at 300mm, it’s something special!

 

[macwalter]

I wonder what adapter works best to put a Sony lens on a Nikon body and also wonder if that plays into the IQ a bit. Having a 3lb 300mm f2.8 is surely tempting for low light scenarios

 

[Matt N]

coming back in to update with more testing

today I spent some time again with the 300GM + 2x, on a Nikon Z9.

The 300 2.8 + 2x seemingly works great if subjects are near MFD. If you're shooting further out - like I tend to be, the 600PF wins in a big way. The 300GM + 2x falls off quite a bit as you try to shoot further out. Which is to be expected. If that wasn't the case - the lens would really be a no-compromise situation.

If you shoot mainly close subjects, at 300mm or 420mm - the 300GM is the obvious choice. If you need a bit more focal length - and you might need to still crop, the choice gets harder.

Ultimately - I haven't decided which 3lb prime will be right for me. 300GM, 400 4.5, or 600PF. Each one has pros and cons.

For me, the 300GM would be excellent for owls and white tails, with occasional close-range birding with TC's.

The 400 4.5 would be okay with owls/deer, a little slower aperture and more range.

The 600PF is great if you live somewhere with a lot of light (I don't), and will give the best images if you're trying to shoot further out.

I think I will probably end up with either the 300GM or 400 4.5...my heart says 300GM, but my wallet says 400 4.5. $6K vs $2K for 1.33 stops of light.

IMO - IQ is very close with all of these options and their TC's - when shooting near MFD.

and although I notice a difference in AF when using the Sony on a Nikon body, it isn't significant enough for me to really consider when making my choice. I was able to shoot swallows in flight without issue. I did change some of my AF settings around since the last time I tried the 300 2.8 though.

some pics from today, Z9 + 300GM + 2x. osprey nest is about 300' away. osprey with goldfish was pretty much right on top of me, but maybe 100' up? hummingbird nest was within 10', swallows were probably 50' - 150' away.

Thanks for the great info. I ended up renting the 300 GM and 2x teleconverter on a Sony A9iii and decided that I wanted to go with the Nikon 400 4.5 instead, which I bought recently. That 400 is phenomenal at 400 and generally acceptable at 560.

 

[ChrisM]

coming back in to update with more testing

today I spent some time again with the 300GM + 2x, on a Nikon Z9.

The 300 2.8 + 2x seemingly works great if subjects are near MFD. If you're shooting further out - like I tend to be, the 600PF wins in a big way. The 300GM + 2x falls off quite a bit as you try to shoot further out. Which is to be expected. If that wasn't the case - the lens would really be a no-compromise situation.

If you shoot mainly close subjects, at 300mm or 420mm - the 300GM is the obvious choice. If you need a bit more focal length - and you might need to still crop, the choice gets harder.

Ultimately - I haven't decided which 3lb prime will be right for me. 300GM, 400 4.5, or 600PF. Each one has pros and cons.

For me, the 300GM would be excellent for owls and white tails, with occasional close-range birding with TC's.

The 400 4.5 would be okay with owls/deer, a little slower aperture and more range.

The 600PF is great if you live somewhere with a lot of light (I don't), and will give the best images if you're trying to shoot further out.

I think I will probably end up with either the 300GM or 400 4.5...my heart says 300GM, but my wallet says 400 4.5. $6K vs $2K for 1.33 stops of light.

IMO - IQ is very close with all of these options and their TC's - when shooting near MFD.

and although I notice a difference in AF when using the Sony on a Nikon body, it isn't significant enough for me to really consider when making my choice. I was able to shoot swallows in flight without issue. I did change some of my AF settings around since the last time I tried the 300 2.8 though.

some pics from today, Z9 + 300GM + 2x. osprey nest is about 300' away. osprey with goldfish was pretty much right on top of me, but maybe 100' up? hummingbird nest was within 10', swallows were probably 50' - 150' away.

View attachment 92358View attachment 92359View attachment 92360View attachment 92361View attachment 92362View attachment 92363

Thanks for posting your impressions.
It is what it is: when shooting over distance, a lens with a 2xTC (ány lens however good it may be) is no match for a prime lens.
For that reason (and others) I will never part with the 600GM.
When shooting at closer range, a 2xTC can help filling more of the frame.
I will never really warm to a 2xTC though, I like 14TC's but not really 2x.

So I am still on the fence about getting the 300GM.
I would really like to see a 400/4 or 500/4.5 from Sony with the 300GM design approach.

 

[Roy]

Thanks for posting your impressions.
It is what it is: when shooting over distance, a lens with a 2xTC (ány lens however good it may be) is no match for a prime lens.
For that reason (and others) I will never part with the 600GM.
When shooting at closer range, a 2xTC can help filling more of the frame.
I will never really warm to a 2xTC though, I like 14TC's but not really 2x.

So I am still on the fence about getting the 300GM.
I would really like to see a 400/4 or 500/4.5 from Sony with the 300GM design approach.

Maybe Sony will make some Phase Fresnel PF lenses like the ones from Nikon...

 

[arbitrage]

Thanks for posting your impressions.
It is what it is: when shooting over distance, a lens with a 2xTC (ány lens however good it may be) is no match for a prime lens.
For that reason (and others) I will never part with the 600GM.
When shooting at closer range, a 2xTC can help filling more of the frame.
I will never really warm to a 2xTC though, I like 14TC's but not really 2x.

So I am still on the fence about getting the 300GM.
I would really like to see a 400/4 or 500/4.5 from Sony with the 300GM design approach.

I had no love for the Sony 2x on the 400 and 600. I hadn't used the thing in a couple years other than a few times to retest it and confirm I hated it. It was collecting dust.
I was sceptical about the early reports of the 2x on the 300GM as I also read reports of people liking the 2x on the 400 and 600GM. We all have our different standards and I assumed my standards were just more particular when it came to 2x use. If my friend hadn't bought the 300 I would have remained skeptical and I don't think I would have ever bought the lens.
Even after my first outing shooting the 300/2x I kept thinking I was biasing my opinion as I found it to be so good. I made sure to borrow my friend's lens multiple more times to make sure I wasn't seeing it through rose tinted glasses. I wasn't. The thing just takes 2xTC like no other Sony lens...the only other Sony lens I've seen take the 2x well is the 70-200/2.8II.
After a couple months trying to find a buyer for my 400GM I finally found someone local to sell to and so far I don't regret the decision at all. The 400GM to me was a 400/2.8 and that was it. Any time I put a TC on it I was let down. The 300GM really doesn't disappoint no matter what I shoot it with.

Now....the 600GM is sharper at 600 it does AF faster at 600 and because of that it will resolve things over greater distances better. It is nothing magic about distance, it is just raw sharpness that allows to shoot over further distances. But the 300/2x can hold its own.

When I think on it if I had to only have the 300+TCs instead of the 600 I'd be okay with the sharpness and AF hits. I think the thing I'd miss is the f/4 aperture. That is the biggest reason I'm keeping the 600.

I wouldn't trade it for a 400/4 or 500/4.5 as I'm making good use out of the bare 300/2.8 right now....I need a supertele at f/2.8 a number of times throughout the year.

This lens is just right up there with my top fav lenses I've owned in the compact category like my 400DOII, 300PF, 500PF and even the 300/2.8ISII back in the day.

Get off the fence and get one....or at least find someone that you can borrow and try...I think you will be loving it as much as the rest of us do. I still don't think I've found anyone that is disappointed in this lens even with the maligned 2xTC.

 

[ChrisM]

I had no love for the Sony 2x on the 400 and 600. I hadn't used the thing in a couple years other than a few times to retest it and confirm I hated it. It was collecting dust.
I was sceptical about the early reports of the 2x on the 300GM as I also read reports of people liking the 2x on the 400 and 600GM. We all have our different standards and I assumed my standards were just more particular when it came to 2x use. If my friend hadn't bought the 300 I would have remained skeptical and I don't think I would have ever bought the lens.
Even after my first outing shooting the 300/2x I kept thinking I was biasing my opinion as I found it to be so good. I made sure to borrow my friend's lens multiple more times to make sure I wasn't seeing it through rose tinted glasses. I wasn't. The thing just takes 2xTC like no other Sony lens...the only other Sony lens I've seen take the 2x well is the 70-200/2.8II.
After a couple months trying to find a buyer for my 400GM I finally found someone local to sell to and so far I don't regret the decision at all. The 400GM to me was a 400/2.8 and that was it. Any time I put a TC on it I was let down. The 300GM really doesn't disappoint no matter what I shoot it with.

Now....the 600GM is sharper at 600 it does AF faster at 600 and because of that it will resolve things over greater distances better. It is nothing magic about distance, it is just raw sharpness that allows to shoot over further distances. But the 300/2x can hold its own.

When I think on it if I had to only have the 300+TCs instead of the 600 I'd be okay with the sharpness and AF hits. I think the thing I'd miss is the f/4 aperture. That is the biggest reason I'm keeping the 600.

I wouldn't trade it for a 400/4 or 500/4.5 as I'm making good use out of the bare 300/2.8 right now....I need a supertele at f/2.8 a number of times throughout the year.

This lens is just right up there with my top fav lenses I've owned in the compact category like my 400DOII, 300PF, 500PF and even the 300/2.8ISII back in the day.

Get off the fence and get one....or at least find someone that you can borrow and try...I think you will be loving it as much as the rest of us do. I still don't think I've found anyone that is disappointed in this lens even with the maligned 2xTC.

All I can say, is that it is good to hear your very positive reports on the 300GM, as I have already decided to add it to the 600GM as a highly portable travel combo with the ungripped A1 and both TC's.
I was keen on this lens and TC's right from the first serious reviews.
I am currently saving up for the 300GM and the 2xTC, I already have the 1.4TC.

I am a bit allergic to reports that have a revelation kind of aura, from users that seem to have had an epiphany using the 300GM and are suddenly ready to dump their 600GM or abandon their intention to ever get one.
But I am genuinely glad that Sony has made the 300GM so well, as I really, really do not want to shoot dual systems, and was awkward with the idea of switching back to Nikon for the better lens choices.
On my last trip to a seabird colony, the 600GM appeared an incredibly versatile and user friendly lens, despite its size, as well as the A1 working perfectly. The 600GM literally does everything well, it has no weak sides.
So I have finally decided to permanently stick with Sony.

I'll get the 300GM in 1-2 months myself, and look forward to using it as a travel friendly option.

 

[nmerc_photos]

All I can say, is that it is good to hear your very positive reports on the 300GM, as I have already decided to add it to the 600GM as a highly portable travel combo with the ungripped A1 and both TC's.
I was keen on this lens and TC's right from the first serious reviews.
I am currently saving up for the 300GM and the 2xTC, I already have the 1.4TC.

I am a bit allergic to reports that have a revelation kind of aura, from users that seem to have had an epiphany using the 300GM and are suddenly ready to dump their 600GM or abandon their intention to ever get one.
But I am genuinely glad that Sony has made the 300GM so well, as I really, really do not want to shoot dual systems, and was awkward with the idea of switching back to Nikon for the better lens choices.
On my last trip to a seabird colony, the 600GM appeared an incredibly versatile and user friendly lens, despite its size, as well as the A1 working perfectly. The 600GM literally does everything well, it has no weak sides.
So I have finally decided to permanently stick with Sony.

I'll get the 300GM in 1-2 months myself, and look forward to using it as a travel friendly option.

based on testing and seeing other's feedback, I feel that if someone shoots subjects mainly 50' or closer, they could easily replace the 600GM with the 300GM + 2X. for elderly folks or people who don't want to lug around a 7lb lens, it's a beautiful option. even if you do shoot subjects further away, it might be worth choosing the 300GM instead for price and weight alone - and just understand that you'll have limited "reach".

what I am learning is that the place where the big primes (400 f2.8, 600 f4, 800 f5.6) shine is when shooting at distance and needing to crop. whatever lens elements or makeup they have, seem to fight better against atmospheric distortions as well as hold up better under cropping.

not all focal lengths are created equally, IE 300GM + 2x, 600PF, 600GM all behave similarly near MFD - but the further away the subject is, the more the differences come out the value of the bigger lens is demonstrated.

it's certainly an incredible engineering feat for Sony that the 300GM is so good that we are even having a discussion about 300GM + 2x vs 600GM.

 

[ChrisM]

based on testing and seeing other's feedback, I feel that if someone shoots subjects mainly 50' or closer, they could easily replace the 600GM with the 300GM + 2X. for elderly folks or people who don't want to lug around a 7lb lens, it's a beautiful option. even if you do shoot subjects further away, it might be worth choosing the 300GM instead for price and weight alone - and just understand that you'll have limited "reach".

what I am learning is that the place where the big primes (400 f2.8, 600 f4, 800 f5.6) shine is when shooting at distance and needing to crop. whatever lens elements or makeup they have, seem to fight better against atmospheric distortions as well as hold up better under cropping.

not all focal lengths are created equally, IE 300GM + 2x, 600PF, 600GM all behave similarly near MFD - but the further away the subject is, the more the differences come out the value of the bigger lens is demonstrated.

it's certainly an incredible engineering feat for Sony that the 300GM is so good that we are even having a discussion about 300GM + 2x vs 600GM.

I agree with you on these points.
I have thought hard about getting the 300GM for an organized birding trip to costa rica, and was close to placing the order.
The main reason for holding off is not any apprehension about the quality of the 300gm with converters, but it is because I am still able to carry and shoot the 600GM handheld, and up to a degree, the weight and size of a lens are something you get used to.

When I reach the point where the 600GM becomes a true burden, I am 58, I know it will be time to get the 300GM.

 

[nmerc_photos]

I agree with you on these points.
I have thought hard about getting the 300GM for an organized birding trip to costa rica, and was close to placing the order.
The main reason for holding off is not any apprehension about the quality of the 300gm with converters, but it is because I am still able to carry and shoot the 600GM handheld, and up to a degree, the weight and size of a lens are something you get used to.

When I reach the point where the 600GM becomes a true burden, I am 58, I know it will be time to get the 300GM.

I think I made up my decision to get the 300GM again. It's such a unique and fun lens. I will still keep a 400TC or 600TC for when I want "the best of the best" or when I'm shooting at distance, but I expect to employ the 300GM a lot.

Although I'm pretty young at 28 and have no problems handholding the big lenses so to speak, it takes a lot of fun out of the photography for me. it also reduces the amount of flexibility I have in getting the shots I want. I like to get in some weird places and angles to take photos where the smaller lightweight lenses shine. Shooting from moving boats, crawling on my stomach, walking through thick woods, shooting from a kayak, floating hide, while swimming, etc.

The size also means that I will ALWAYS be able to carry it with me. Even if it isn't a dedicated wildlife trip, I can have a great 600 f5.6 nearby.

In my experience, in situations where I need low light (f2.8), or can get relatively close to my subject (300 - 600mm), I often have a lot more opportunity to maneuver and get my subject framed up as I want. Thinking owls, white tail deer, loons, etc. And because the subjects give me the opportunity to move around and frame up shots - I take it! Meaning I'm walking a lot more, bending more, changing height, etc. Making the 300GM perfect for those types of shoots.

In times when I need to shoot a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4, it's because I can't easily get closer to the subjects. Shooting across a lake, from the road onto private property, staying back from bears, bison, elk, etc. In these situations, I can often be cropping up to 90% of the image out and that's where the big boys still leave desirable images. and in these times, shooting from a tripod is perfectly fine because I know I won't be moving during the session.

 

[lukemeup]

I got my hands on 600PF recently as a light walk-around lens when I don't want to haul the big one around. haven't managed to shoot it much yet (because I'm mainly hauling the big one around) but so far so good.

 

[nmerc_photos]

I got my hands on 600PF recently as a light walk-around lens when I don't want to haul the big one around. haven't managed to shoot it much yet (because I'm mainly hauling the big one around) but so far so good.

outstanding pictures Luke! so you went from 400 4.5 + 800PF to 600PF + 400TC? do you have any other lenses?

 

[lukemeup]

outstanding pictures Luke! so you went from 400 4.5 + 800PF to 600PF + 400TC? do you have any other lenses?

Cheers. For longer glass I currently have 70-200 + 400TC + 600PF. I'm most often a single lens / single body shooter (I just don't like switching lenses or carrying too much gear with me). I don't sit in blinds and don't even have a gimbal head to shoot from a tripod. If I'm going for a nature focused walk - 400TC and TC1.4 comes along. If I'm going for a regular stroll or I'm feeling lazy - I'll take the 600PF. Wife told me I can't have 2 big lenses so 800PF has a new owner.

I thought long and hard about 600TC but I just wouldn't be able to handhold it comfortably and here in the coastal BC where summers are short and the light goes away quickly - 400 2.8 / 560 4 combo will be very useful for me.

Not to steer this thread into another direction - 600PF offer a pretty good package. Light & sharp. I said before that I'd never buy it at MSRP but a lightly used one for 30% off was something I was able to justify.

 

[Doug Herr]

I agree with you on these points.
I have thought hard about getting the 300GM for an organized birding trip to costa rica, and was close to placing the order.
The main reason for holding off is not any apprehension about the quality of the 300gm with converters, but it is because I am still able to carry and shoot the 600GM handheld, and up to a degree, the weight and size of a lens are something you get used to.

When I reach the point where the 600GM becomes a true burden, I am 58, I know it will be time to get the 300GM.

I've been using the 600 GM for nearly 5 years, often hand-held. I've found the lighter weight of the 300 GM + 2x TC means greater maneuverability, easier to follow active subjects at close range. There's also the much closer MFD which means I'm rarely saying "#&*!, too close".

 

[Roy]

The 600mm PF is lighter than my 300mm f2.8 ...