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).

Member's gallery
Roy said:
My 300mm weighs around 3kg which is more than twice that of the 600 PF ... 🦘
Click to expand...
The Sony 300 f:2.8 weighs 1470g, exactly the same as the 600pf. Which gives the 600pf a small weight advantage as you need to add the 2x TC for the Sony (200g). So 1670g vs 1470g - quite comparable
the 600 pf is also a bit longer than the 300mm but a bit shorter than 300 + 2x TC. Again very comparable. Within 1 inch of each other.
‘The pf wins on price, being $1100 cheaper than the 300mm and $1650 cheaper than 300 + 2x TC, and the 300 strikes back by being a 300 f:2.8, a 400 f:4 and a 600 f:5.6 - all 3 with a MFD of 2m instead of 4m on the 600pf.

it‘s hard to not be impressed by both lenses. They go at it differently but each redefines their category.
 
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
The Sony 300 f:2.8 weighs 1470g, exactly the same as the 600pf. Which gives the 600pf a small weight advantage as you need to add the 2x TC for the Sony (200g). So 1670g vs 1470g - quite comparable
the 600 pf is also a bit longer than the 300mm but a bit shorter than 300 + 2x TC. Again very comparable. Within 1 inch of each other.
‘The pf wins on price, being $1100 cheaper than the 300mm and $1650 cheaper than 300 + 2x TC, and the 300 strikes back by being a 300 f:2.8, a 400 f:4 and a 600 f:5.6 - all 3 with a MFD of 2m instead of 4m on the 600pf.

it‘s hard to not be impressed by both lenses. They go at it differently but each redefines their category.
Click to expand...
Hmm, but the Sony cameras are lighter?
 
Member's gallery
foxysport said:
Hmm, but the Sony cameras are lighter?
Click to expand...
Fair It’s all about what you compare; A1 + grip = 2.65 lb with battery and media, Z9 = 2.9lb with battery and media - so roughly 110g heavier which negates half of the 600pf advantage
‘All in all, they are so close to be negligibly different. The advantage of the A1 is that it can drop 1lb when you don’t need the grip - to me that’s an awesome advantage because I use it for wildlife (gripped) and street (ungripped), but for others it’s a weakness if you only shoot gripped (more possible points of failure).


The point being that for this particular case (pro body, 600mm f:5.6/6.3) both Sony and Nikon deliver a great option that are so close in weight and size to be nearly identical. Until you look at price where Nikon‘s solution is substantially cheaper. $1600 less for the lens, $1500 less for the body and hundreds of $ less on memory cards (for the same capacity).

If you are picking which system to choose based on that configuration, it’s not small pocket change. Buys extra batteries, extra memories, a tripod, a computer and a screen… If you are withSony, like I am, the cost of switching brands mostly negates the lower Nikon price (that and I like the A1 handling so much better that it’s a moot point for me but that’s personal preference), but Nikon has put together an impressive package for wildlife shooters. If I was starting now, I would have to go Nikon.
 
FB101 said:
Fair It’s all about what you compare; A1 + grip = 2.65 lb with battery and media, Z9 = 2.9lb with battery and media - so roughly 110g heavier which negates half of the 600pf advantage
‘All in all, they are so close to be negligibly different.
Click to expand...
Absolutely no grip or z9 for me. My comparison is a1 with 300 GM + TCs or z8 with 600 PF. As I rarely use any FL over 600mm when hiking and want to have shorter focal lengths available, the flexibility of 300-420-600mm and 2 meter MFD make my choice for a lightweight birding/hiking camera easy. I realize that cost is a concern for many, I'll use the equipment that works best for me and find a way to make it happen.
 
Member's gallery
Well... there was this guy Newton who had a law that said something about objects in motion and at rest...

He was a big Apple fan too :)

P.S: there is some practical truth in what Roy said if you think a bit about center of mass and how the human biomechanics work.
 
StefanSC said:
Well... there was this guy Newton who had a law that said something about objects in motion and at rest...

He was a big Apple fan too :)

P.S: there is some practical truth in what Roy said if you think a bit about center of mass and how the human biomechanics work.
Click to expand...
For 600mm work I'm using both 600 f/4 and 300mm + 2x TC lenses; the center of mass of the lightweight 600mm f/4 with the lightweight a1 body is exactly at the tripod mount, which is where I hand-hold the rig. Very comfortable. The center of mass of the 300 GM + 2x TC with a1 body is also at the tripod mount and is much easier to track small active birds due to the lower angular inertia. In my tests I can hand-hold the 600GM + a1 at 1/125 sec with good results, the 300 GM + 2x TC + a1 at 1/30 sec with good results. YMMV.
 
Member's gallery
Yup, which is in line with my findings in the field...

For a certain focal length telephoto if the lens is too light, it's going to be harder to stabilize as you tend to over-correct with too much force.

Then as the weight increases, it gets to a sweet spot where it is easier to stabilize and use.

And then increase the weight more and it gets harder to stabilize due to requiring too much force as input.

This seems to vary on a person to person basis (and the amount of coffee they had :) ).

And if the body is too light compared to the lens itself (e.g: 300g body to a 2.5kg lens... been there done that) then it gets harder to keep stable and move and leads to more fatigue as you'll be mostly supporting everything with one extended hand.

As another example, I am finding I prefer to use grips on bodies when using a lens that extends while zooming.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
The Sony 300 f:2.8 weighs 1470g, exactly the same as the 600pf. Which gives the 600pf a small weight advantage as you need to add the 2x TC for the Sony (200g). So 1670g vs 1470g - quite comparable
the 600 pf is also a bit longer than the 300mm but a bit shorter than 300 + 2x TC. Again very comparable. Within 1 inch of each other.
‘The pf wins on price, being $1100 cheaper than the 300mm and $1650 cheaper than 300 + 2x TC, and the 300 strikes back by being a 300 f:2.8, a 400 f:4 and a 600 f:5.6 - all 3 with a MFD of 2m instead of 4m on the 600pf.

it‘s hard to not be impressed by both lenses. They go at it differently but each redefines their category.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt a 300f2.8 would be a great addition. If Nikon were to come out with one with similar specs. I would likely sell my 400f4.5.
 
Member's gallery
Last weekend my friend and I both lent our 300GMs to two other friends who had come down island for a morning of shooting.
One of them currently has 600GM and the other has both 400/600GM.
Within 15mins they were both blown away with the 2xTC and the overall size and weight.

The one friend with the 400/600 already has his
own copy of the 300GM arriving tomorrow. 😁
Like myself he thinks he will sell his 400GM soon after spending a little time with the 300.

If I shot Nikon I’d surely own the 600PF and that was really driving me to add Nikon to my Sony kit again. But the purchase of the 300GM has totally cured my GAS for Nikon. Only the 600TC/400TC tempt me somewhat. But not enough for the $20K+ outlay in CAD$
 
Member's gallery
Lots of interesting discussions but it would be really great to see side by side shots. I just got the 300 F2.8, it's definitely sharper than my 200-600. AF with x2.0 seem to be similar to 200-600 @600. I did notice the 300 F2.0 +x2 @ 5.6 sticks to the background more readily than 200-600 @ 6.3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top