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).

Member's gallery
Nice comparison. While I am not a Sony shooter., I use primarily Canon and some Nikon. I also found that the Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 worked very well with the Canon 2x TC. I am very glad to see that multiple manufacturers are raising the bar.
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
It’s kinda telling that there’s active threads about the 300 2.8 + TCs here and over at FM, but no threads/interest whatsoever about the bare lens itself 😂 I take it people are buying a 600 f/5.6, and as a bonus you get a 300 2.8 and 420 f4.
Click to expand...

Honestly, it's the only interest I'd ever have in a 300 2.8, getting a good hiking lens that I could use with TCs for wildlife. I'm not a sports photographer.
 
MatthewK said:
It’s kinda telling that there’s active threads about the 300 2.8 + TCs here and over at FM, but no threads/interest whatsoever about the bare lens itself 😂 I take it people are buying a 600 f/5.6, and as a bonus you get a 300 2.8 and 420 f4.
Click to expand...
Be careful what you assume.

The performance of the bare lens by itself is not in question so there doesn't need to be much discussion of it. Performance with TCs makes it more versatile. My first wildlife lens was a 300mm f/4.5 Nikkor-H so I learned how to use it effectively for wildlife photos. I'm interested in the versatility: a 300mm lens I know how to use plus 420mm and 600mm as needed, more hiking-friendly than the big primes like the 600 GM. When hiking with the 600 GM I typically don't have the space in my pack or the weight tolerance for much of anything else so the photos that would be better with a shorter lens are either missed or sub-optimal.

A few of my photos from the 1970s made with the 300mm Nikkor; one was my first national photo credit, several others continue to be among my best-sellers:


lepcal00.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


ochpri00.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


elaleu01.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


ictbul00.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


bubsca00.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

​
My point in posting these photos is that a 300mm lens can be very useful for wildlife photography if the photographer spends the time to do the field work.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Just calling it as we’re seeing it… Sony should have made it a 600 5.6 🤷‍♂️ I see no hype whatsoever about it being a stunning 300 2.8 (because it is), only chatter and threads about how awesome of a 600 5.6 it is.

Sure they’ll eventually fill that need in their lineup, and the excitement for this new lens is warranted for Sony users.
 
Last edited:
MatthewK said:
Just calling it as we’re seeing it… Sony should have made it a 600 5.6 🤷‍♂️ I see no hype whatsoever about it being a stunning 300 2.8 (because it is), only chatter and threads about how awesome of a 600 5.6 it is.

Sure they’ll eventually fill that need in their lineup, and the excitement for this new lens is warranted for Sony users.
Click to expand...
I'd have preferred a 600mm f/5.6 instead of the 600mm f/4, I rarely use the f/4 maximum aperture but I'd still be interested in a 300mm prime. If this lens can meet both roles I'm happy. You don't see hype about it being a stunning 300mm f/2.8 because there's no need to discus the obvious.
 
Member's gallery
A 600mm f5.6 is my eternal unicorn lens that no camera brand will ever make.

I played with the idea that a 300/2.8 with 2XTC would come close to being this unicorn. But the Z600/6.3 has shown what the unicorn lens coúld be sharpness wise, and even a "punching above its weight" Sony 300GM is pulled down to earth just enough to lose the pixie dust neccessary to be the unicorn, so the place will remain vacant for undoubtedly much longer.

I am more interested in the Sigma 500mm f5.6 and hope to see a comparison, cropped to equal fov on the A1, with the 300GM +2.0TC
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...
First lens that I've come home and been satisfied with the hit rate using the 2xTC. And that was in cloudy/gloomy conditions yesterday and included swallow in flight.
Sure the 2x still robs the crazy sharpness you get with the bare lens. Bare lens was amazing. But as a small, lightweight, option I'd be totally happy using it with the 2x. Especially for non-BIF....the results were excellent even at longer distances but especially up close. MFD is so close you can really get some good magnification.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
First lens that I've come home and been satisfied with the hit rate using the 2xTC. And that was in cloudy/gloomy conditions yesterday and included swallow in flight.
Sure the 2x still robs the crazy sharpness you get with the bare lens. Bare lens was amazing. But as a small, lightweight, option I'd be totally happy using it with the 2x. Especially for non-BIF....the results were excellent even at longer distances but especially up close. MFD is so close you can really get some good magnification.
Click to expand...
@DavidT You know what you have to do: open the wallet ;)
 
Member's gallery
I am sure it will be a high quality, very enjoyable combo to go along when the 600GM is too much lens, and you don't need 840mm f5.6

Still, I wonder what it would do better than a Sigma 500 cropped to the same fov.
If the Sigma had not come with its surprise launch, I would have ventured and spent 7000,- but if the Sigma can do what the 300GM with 2X TC can do, then I would rather go that route...
 
Member's gallery
ChrisM said:
I am sure it will be a high quality, very enjoyable combo to go along when the 600GM is too much lens, and you don't need 840mm f5.6

Still, I wonder what it would do better than a Sigma 500 cropped to the same fov.
If the Sigma had not come with its surprise launch, I would have ventured and spent 7000,- but if the Sigma can do what the 300GM with 2X TC can do, then I would rather go that route...
Click to expand...
And how do you do with the 500mm what the 300mm does without teleconverter? ;)
 
ChrisM said:
I am sure it will be a high quality, very enjoyable combo to go along when the 600GM is too much lens, and you don't need 840mm f5.6

Still, I wonder what it would do better than a Sigma 500 cropped to the same fov.
If the Sigma had not come with its surprise launch, I would have ventured and spent 7000,- but if the Sigma can do what the 300GM with 2X TC can do, then I would rather go that route...
Click to expand...
> 15 frames/sec?
 
ChrisM said:
I have no real use for 300mm myself, perhaps on a DX camera, but not on full frame. Even 420mm is too short for wildlife/birding on a full frame camera.
It's more a sports focal length
Click to expand...
For you maybe it's a sports focal length, others have different needs and skills.
The 300 GM's MFD is also an advantage: 2 meters vs. 3.2 meters for the Sigma. The 300's MFD doesn't change when a TC is added.

Honestly, in the absence of the 300 GM I'd be very interested in the Sigma 500, but I'd still be looking for a 300mm lens. This 300 GM fits both needs for me.
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
Just calling it as we’re seeing it… Sony should have made it a 600 5.6 🤷‍♂️ I see no hype whatsoever about it being a stunning 300 2.8 (because it is), only chatter and threads about how awesome of a 600 5.6 it is.

Sure they’ll eventually fill that need in their lineup, and the excitement for this new lens is warranted for Sony users.
Click to expand...
Sports shooters who shoot indoors like basketball have been wanting this lens and will shoot it at 300. Wildlife which is the bubble we live in sees it as something else than just a 300.
 
Member's gallery
The Sigma 500 will do well in the market. I’d consider buying one for light weight use but the no tele is a deal breaker for me when I’ve already got light weight options in my kit.

It’s really hard to even justify the 300GM when I already own the 70-200, 100-400, 200-600, 400GM and 600GM.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
Sports shooters who shoot indoors like basketball have been wanting this lens and will shoot it at 300. Wildlife which is the bubble we live in sees it as something else than just a 300.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was going to add that onto my previous post this morning. We here on BCG are sorta biased towards wildlife 😏 Even still, I for one want to see more bare-lens shots from this 300 2.8, which we’ll probably see more of soon enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top