Sony 300mm with Teleconverters - sharpness

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).

D

DaveStewart

New member
Member's gallery
I have been double checking my initial findings when testing the teleconverters on the Sony 300mm f2.8 GM.

Below is a comparison of the 600mm f4 GM and the 300mm f2.8 GM with the 2x teleconverter. All shot on the Sony A1.

Screenshot 2024-02-03 at 16.31.12 copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


The 600mm f4 is on the left and the 300mm f2.8 plus 2x teleconverter is on the right.

Same scenario but different subject.

Screenshot 2024-02-03 at 16.29.36 copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


I cannot decree any meaningful difference between the results, I have never had much success with the 2x teleconverter previously but this seems to change that - I would be interested in your views.

Regards
 
Member's gallery
DaveStewart said:
I have been double checking my initial findings when testing the teleconverters on the Sony 300mm f2.8 GM.

Below is a comparison of the 600mm f4 GM and the 300mm f2.8 GM with the 2x teleconverter. All shot on the Sony A1.

View attachment 80567

The 600mm f4 is on the left and the 300mm f2.8 plus 2x teleconverter is on the right.

Same scenario but different subject.

View attachment 80569

I cannot decree any meaningful difference between the results, I have never had much success with the 2x teleconverter previously but this seems to change that - I would be interested in your views.

Regards
Click to expand...
Very interesting, thank you!

They are really very close. Are both shot at F 5,6 and same ISO?
 
Member's gallery
DaveStewart said:
I have been double checking my initial findings when testing the teleconverters on the Sony 300mm f2.8 GM.

Below is a comparison of the 600mm f4 GM and the 300mm f2.8 GM with the 2x teleconverter. All shot on the Sony A1.

View attachment 80567

The 600mm f4 is on the left and the 300mm f2.8 plus 2x teleconverter is on the right.

Same scenario but different subject.

View attachment 80569

I cannot decree any meaningful difference between the results, I have never had much success with the 2x teleconverter previously but this seems to change that - I would be interested in your views.

Regards
Click to expand...

If there is any difference, it'll be in the corners where the MTF drops by about 3%. From everything I'm seeing and reading, it might be the sharpest lens on the market today (ever).
 
Member's gallery
Nimi said:
If there is any difference, it'll be in the corners where the MTF drops by about 3%. From everything I'm seeing and reading, it might be the sharpest lens on the market today (ever).
Click to expand...
Yes you’re right. I am most interested in centre sharpness. I will compared the corners in the next couple of days.
 
Member's gallery
One thought is that often IQ is fantastic with TCs in controlled situations. However, I find that AF performance and accuracy suffers compared to a lens without TCs most of the time.

For instance, my 400 2.8 Sony is jaw-dropping without any TCs, really good with the 1.4TC, but misses critical focus a little more than I'd like with the 2X. It's not that the 2X can't get outstanding photos, it's that the plane of focus isn't always as consistent as it is without it (or when using longer lenses without the 2X).
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
One thought is that often IQ is fantastic with TCs in controlled situations. However, I find that AF performance and accuracy suffers compared to a lens without TCs most of the time.

For instance, my 400 2.8 Sony is jaw-dropping without any TCs, really good with the 1.4TC, but misses critical focus a little more than I'd like with the 2X. It's not that the 2X can't get outstanding photos, it's that the plane of focus isn't always as consistent as it is without it (or when using longer lenses without the 2X).
Click to expand...
Hi Steve, yes I agree and will be testing this in the field this week. Although I did take multiple test shots and the 300mm with the TC was as consistent as the bare 600mm f4 (although I agree it was test conditions). For each shot I manually focussed to infinity used autofocus to acquire focus for each shot. I will post my findings from the field later in the week.

To be honest, no one is more surprised than me by the results as I have never had such good results, even under test conditions, with any other lens (including the 600mm f4 with teleconverters). That is why I had to re-run my tests to make sure. We will see what in the field testing this week reveals.
 
Member's gallery
DaveStewart said:
I have been double checking my initial findings when testing the teleconverters on the Sony 300mm f2.8 GM.

Below is a comparison of the 600mm f4 GM and the 300mm f2.8 GM with the 2x teleconverter. All shot on the Sony A1.
Click to expand...
Could you please upload the RAWs somewhere? I can provide a place to upload them to, if that is an issue.
 
Member's gallery
DaveStewart said:
I have been double checking my initial findings when testing the teleconverters on the Sony 300mm f2.8 GM.

Below is a comparison of the 600mm f4 GM and the 300mm f2.8 GM with the 2x teleconverter. All shot on the Sony A1.

View attachment 80567

The 600mm f4 is on the left and the 300mm f2.8 plus 2x teleconverter is on the right.

Same scenario but different subject.

View attachment 80569

I cannot decree any meaningful difference between the results, I have never had much success with the 2x teleconverter previously but this seems to change that - I would be interested in your views.

Regards
Click to expand...
WOW that is super impressive!
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
One thought is that often IQ is fantastic with TCs in controlled situations. However, I find that AF performance and accuracy suffers compared to a lens without TCs most of the time.

For instance, my 400 2.8 Sony is jaw-dropping without any TCs, really good with the 1.4TC, but misses critical focus a little more than I'd like with the 2X. It's not that the 2X can't get outstanding photos, it's that the plane of focus isn't always as consistent as it is without it (or when using longer lenses without the 2X).
Click to expand...
^This x1000

The TCs cause small but noticeable back focus in action shots that ruin critical sharpness on the eye of the subject unless you are shooting birds so far away that the DOF covers all the mistakes. I think this an AF issue for the most part. Test bench shots with the TCs are excellent.

I'll be very happy if this isn't the case with the 300/2xTC but so far IME the 400GM and 600GM suffer from this with the 2xTC. So much so that I've stopped using the 2x all together. They suffer with the 1.4 also but not as bad.
 
Member's gallery
Lotuselite said:
I would like to see the results of this type of test against the 200-600.
Click to expand...
I have these and will post later - the 300mm with 2x TC is clearly sharper than the 200-600mm. In addition the 300mm plus 2x is a true 600mm whereas the 200-600mm at the long end (and close up) is significantly less. Not sure my wife thinks the cost justifies the difference in image quality but the AF also is more sure on the 300mm even with the 2x teleconverter.

Will post the comparisons tomorrow.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
One thought is that often IQ is fantastic with TCs in controlled situations. However, I find that AF performance and accuracy suffers compared to a lens without TCs most of the time.

For instance, my 400 2.8 Sony is jaw-dropping without any TCs, really good with the 1.4TC, but misses critical focus a little more than I'd like with the 2X. It's not that the 2X can't get outstanding photos, it's that the plane of focus isn't always as consistent as it is without it (or when using longer lenses without the 2X).
Click to expand...
I agree with that in my limited experience but one thing I found when shooting with the z8 was although I missed more shots with the 2x tc with 20fps and a bit of patience and care you can still get good results.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I wouldn't take two of them for the 100-400 lol
Click to expand...
Well the 100-400 would stay in my bag. What I wonder if the size, weight and sharpness with teleconverters would make a better lens than my 400GM since I also have a 600GM.

I could see adding the 300, selling the 200-600 which I can’t remember the last time I used it and the 400GM.

This would pair me down to a 70-200, 300, 100-400 and 600GM for telephotos.

I would take about a $1k hit on my 400GM and about $700 on the 200-600 so the size would have to tip the scales if it’s worth it.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
Well the 100-400 would stay in my bag. What I wonder if the size, weight and sharpness with teleconverters would make a better lens than my 400GM since I also have a 600GM.

I could see adding the 300, selling the 200-600 which I can’t remember the last time I used it and the 400GM.

This would pair me down to a 70-200, 300, 100-400 and 600GM for telephotos.

I would take about a $1k hit on my 400GM and about $700 on the 200-600 so the size would have to tip the scales if it’s worth it.
Click to expand...
I really see no use unless you’re selling the 400 prime but that’s just my opinion.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I really see no use unless you’re selling the 400 prime but that’s just my opinion.
Click to expand...
It’s why I haven’t ordered yet. Little is nice and I do love f2.8 but as a 300 I hardly used the Nikon ones I’ve had in the past. Not many people have the lenses I have so adding a $6k lens gets to be hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top