Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Have you used and compared the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS with the 2X teleconverter to the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS for birds and other wildlife? 

I'm considering the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS (I already have the 2x teleconverter) to replace the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS.

I've scoured the web but can't find many helpful direct comparisons. 

Application, Environment and Background Info

I walk 10-20 kilometres every morning on the southwest coast of British Columbia. It's winter, and in my area that means it's dark and dreary with lots or rain. There are all kinds of birds, from Bald Eagles to Swallows, Hummingbirds and plenty of shorebirds, with many passing through on their migratory paths.  I carry an A1 and FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS and an A7 IV with a FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS or FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II for closer opportunities and landscapes. 

I'm happy with the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS when the light is good, but I'm in the middle of six months of this rainy season, so I'm usually shooting at 600 mm, f/6.3, 1/500 sec for stationary subjects, and 1/2000-1/4000 for things on the move. My ISO is often above 6400. 

I don't use a tripod or monopod. I'm always on the move.

I frequently crop to 200%. 

I rarely do videos.

I don't shoot sports.

The FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS serves me well for large birds like Bald Eagles when the light is good. 

Although I'm almost always at the long end (600 mm) of the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS, I use the zoom when a large bird approaches or for distant landscapes.

I don't mind the weight of carrying two cameras with these lenses.

Things I hope to change or improve

  • Greater agility with a lighter, shorter lens
    I struggle to move the lens fast enough to catch swallows and other small birds in flight. I do much better with the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II, but I can't fill the frame with that lens.  I can sometimes keep up with those smaller, faster birds, even with the 2x teleconverter, but I still want more reach.
  • Exploring with the 300 mm, fast prime lens
    I like the idea of expanding my photography as I look for subjects I can capture at 300mm at f/2.8 (people and pet portraits outside, musical acts on stage). Although I have tended to use zoom lenses (FE PZ 16-35 MM F4 G, FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS, FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II), I got the FE 50mm F1.2 GM and have enjoyed having to work with the fixed focal length and how that leads me in different directions. I wonder if I would find the same thing with the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS.
  • Depth of Field and Bokeh
    I'm unsure if the shallow depth of field and bokeh will make a big difference for me. But I may find that these attributes present new opportunities like the FE 50mm F1.2 GM.

Here's what I think will happen.

I'll use the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS without the teleconverter on dreary days. I have used the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II (sometimes with the 2X teleconverter) for those days.

I'll use the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS with the 2X teleconverter when there's better light. 

Expectations of the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS with 2X teleconverter 

  • The focus accuracy and speed with the 2X teleconverter will match or better the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS 
  • The image quality will be at least as good as the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS 
    • I'm happy with the image quality using the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II and 2X teleconverter and can tolerate the slightly slower focus speed. I imagine the results will be similar with the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS but at least as good or better than the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS 
  • It will be easier to track small birds in flight with the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS with 2X teleconverter (1675 grams) vs FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (2115 grams). The difference is 340 grams (12 oz) and 5.1 cm in length. That should make a difference, right? 

Questions

Have you tried both? What are your experiences? Will you keep the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS?

Are my expectations realistic?

Thanks for reading and thinking about this with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • Wow, we have two distinctly different trains of thought. I'm not sure how valuable my advice will be, just consider this something to toss around in the back of your mind. First off, I hate rangefinder style bodies, never could get on with them. The decision of whether to go with a full-size body wasn't even in play. The difference when looking at size comparison photos is considerable, the difference in practical use is minor. About the only time I can think of that it may be beneficial is street if you want to conceal yourself a bit.  Lenses: Size and weight don't bother me near as much as inconvenience. Who in the heck wants to be changing lenses all the time? I take a short zoom, a long zoom, and a medium-wide fast prime for indoors. That's it. I am hoping Sigma's 20-200 set to be released tomorrow isn't a turd, if it's decent it will replace my 24-105.  If I were to go on a trip today, my setup would be: A1 70-200/2.8 GM II 24-105 Samyang 24/1.8.  If I was feeling it, I might add the 2X TC for the GM II, but I doubt it'd even get used.  An alternative to the 70-200 + TC would be the Tamron 50-400.  BOTH of these setups fit nicely in my Tenba Solstice 10L Sling.  So, I would say yes. Trade up to the A7R V. Definitely get the 24-70, or maybe the 24-105 for more range. You don't need 2.8 for your described subject matter.  As an aside, I never, ever, ever shoot in crop mode. Why? Well, I can do the exact same thing in post on my computer. They're both just electronic crops. I end up with a lot more information that way, and who knows, if I'm going to crop anyway, maybe there's a better composition hidden in the full frame image that I didn't see when I made the shot? Much easier to remove content than to add it.  
    • Hi all, For about the last 1.5 years I've been using the Sony a7CR combined with the 24-50mm f2.8 G lens as one of the lenses that basically lives on my camera. Besides this I have the following lenses as well: Sony 16-25mm f2.8 G Sony 14mm f1.8 GM Sony 40mm f2.5 G Sigma 85mm f1.4 On my last travel I took the above mentioned lenses with me + the 24-50 G. Would have most likely taken the Sony 14mm f1.8 GM but I didn't own this yet at the time. For my next travel I do want to take this as well so then my setup would look like: Sony 24-50mm f2.8 G Sony 16-25mm f2.8 G Sony 40mm f2.5 G Sigma 85mm f1.4 Sony 14mm f1.8 GM At this point I feel like I'm kinda reaching a bit of a limit in terms of lenses I want to take with me during travel, especially the 85mm. I wish to use it more but noticed I often left it at the hotel/apartment room I was staying at. Initially I bought the a7CR for weight savings but as time has passed I do feel certain limits with the setup especially during travel/landscape (as this is my main form of photography). And that's mainly coming from the amount of lenses I'm taking. I have been considering to trade in the 24-50 G lens to the 24-70 GMII to use on my a7CR but after using my Sigma 85mm f1.4 for an extended time on my a7CR it does feel uncomfortable to use due to the front heavy nature of the setup. The 24-70 GMII would be about the same weight as the Sigma. One option would be to use the extended grip on my a7CR, this certainly makes handling a lot better of bigger lenses but I usually have my setup hanging from the Peak Design Capture Clip on my backpack and I'm not sure if the extended grip really designed to take this much weight to be fair. Maybe anyone here has experience with this? So what this leads me to was the consideration to upgrade to the a7RV + Sony 24-70 GMII as there are some good trade in deals going on right now where I'm at. I'm not sure is this setup an absolute overkill for a hobbyist photographer... :) The benefits of this upgrade would be to have less need for changing lenses during travel and reduce the amount of separate lenses I have to take with me. The overall weight would however be approx. the same that goes in my backpack. Usually when I'm out for hikes I will currently only take the 16-25 & 24-50 with me. With this setup the reach feels limiting even with cropping the 50mm to 75mm (still approx. 26MP on the a7CR after crop). What I usually use my setup for: Landscape photography Travel Portrait Astrophotography I was wondering is there anyone here who went from a lighter a7CR (or similar) setup to a slightly heavier setup to carry around during hikes etc. Did you regret it or was the tradeoff worth it? As mentioned I do feel like my current setup is somewhat limiting and realized that switching lenses during travel is an absolute pain in the ass. But I'm not sure if the extra 450gr (about 1 lb) is worth the tradeoff. I know the decision is ultimately up to me but just like to hear your thoughts on this upgrade, and if the additional features & image quality in trade for weight would be worth it as well. TL;DR: Looking to upgrade my a7CR 24-50G f2.8 setup to a7RV with 24-70GMII f2.8 lens, not sure if it's worth it with the additional weight in trade for more versatility and better IQ. Thanks in advance for your replies!
    • I got one tuned up pretty well last year. I don’t remember exactly after doing a 77ii not too far apart that was different. The a68 was faster and more accurate but color profile was more work to tune btw. profile/style set to clear and highest sharpness allowed + micro focus adjustments per lens if I remember right. And any of these fall apart fast in low light or slow lenses. 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...