Sony 300mm with Teleconverters - sharpness

[Saint]

I was talking to Roberts Camera yesterday and they said they had some. Ask for Nick and tell him Steve sent ya

Thanks Steve! Nick H was out but Nick P helped me out. It’s on the way! They had 5 in stock.

 

[JoPoV]

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

is it 100 % crop ? Is it center frame or border ?

EDIT : ok seen it : 198,7 %.

 

[Doug Herr]

I spent an hour in my backyard blind near the birdbath using the 300 GM + 2x TC.

Summary: two thumbs up.

I used the lens at full aperture (effectively f/5.6) in overcast light with tiny fidgety birds. Subject motion was an issue but I got enough photos w/o too much motion to make some initial conclusions. On a per-pixel level this combination is not quite as sharp as the 600 GM, but it's very close. The advantage in this scenario is the MFD, I'm able to work a lot closer to the birds and get a lot more pixels per bird.

I traded the 100-400 GM for this lens. I had hardly used the 100-400 at any focal length less than 300mm and its performance with the 1.4x TC was underwhelming. Aside from the damage to my wallet I'm very happy with the trade.

 

[DavidT]

I spent an hour in my backyard blind near the birdbath using the 300 GM + 2x TC.

Summary: two thumbs up.

I used the lens at full aperture (effectively f/5.6) in overcast light with tiny fidgety birds. Subject motion was an issue but I got enough photos w/o too much motion to make some initial conclusions. On a per-pixel level this combination is not quite as sharp as the 600 GM, but it's very close. The advantage in this scenario is the MFD, I'm able to work a lot closer to the birds and get a lot more pixels per bird.

I traded the 100-400 GM for this lens. I had hardly used the 100-400 at any focal length less than 300mm and its performance with the 1.4x TC was underwhelming. Aside from the damage to my wallet I'm very happy with the trade.

What is the difference in the MFD between the 300 and the 100-400?

 

[Doug Herr]

What is the difference in the MFD between the 300 and the 100-400?

The 100-400's MFD is about half that of the 300 GM.

I couldn't take advantage of the 100-400's closer MFD because getting closer to tiny birds than the 300's 2-meter MFD happens very rarely and for the image quality I want the 100-400 is limited to 400mm (no TCs).

 

[DavidT]

The 100-400's MFD is about half that of the 300 GM.

I couldn't take advantage of the 100-400's closer MFD because getting closer to tiny birds than the 300's 2-meter MFD happens very rarely and for the image quality I want the 100-400 is limited to 400mm (no TCs).

Makes sense. I use the 100-400 mostly for flowers and bugs.

 

[Doug Herr]

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

Playing with the new lens in the back yard.

 

[Palmor]

Finally got out with the lens. Not much interesting happening but the photos I did take were sharp with the 2x TC. I was impressed with how fast the AF was with the 2x on it.

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.

 

[David43]

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.

Did you post comparson with 200-600? In my tests with other telephoto lenses you can't see a difference when the target is close, I would test at 30m to get a real compariosn of sharpness.

 

[DavidT]

Did you post comparson with 200-600? In my tests with other telephoto lenses you can't see a difference when the target is close, I would test at 30m to get a real compariosn of sharpness.

Other reports are showing it’s sharper. However, the quality of a lens optics go beyond just sharpness.

 

[daran]

Did you post comparson with 200-600? In my tests with other telephoto lenses you can't see a difference when the target is close, I would test at 30m to get a real compariosn of sharpness.

In my experience these long lenses are already as sharp as they get when tested at 6m (20 feet). If you see a significantly loss of sharpness when testing longer distances that is likely due to poor seeing (aka air quality aka haze).
I have both lenses and the 300+TC2 is very slightly sharper, only visible when cropping or enlarging quite a bit. Both loose a lot of their sharpness towards the edge. The 600GM is a bit sharper in the center and much sharper towards the edges.

 

[Palmor]

A few more examples with the 2x

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.