Totally wowed by the new FE 300/2.8 GM

[Arcimboldo]

Got mine on Saturday. This lens completely wows me: It is at its sharpest right at 2.8 (on an a7R III, so still 42 MP), and it is sharp right into the corners, no matter if naked, with the 1.4x, or the 2.0x TC (where it is also already at its sharpest at 4 and 5.6, respectively). Totally usable with the 2.0x TC - I am really happy that I made use of the promotion to save 200 Euros after I dismissed the 2.0x TC with even the 70-200 GM II (which is by no means a bad lens). No noticeable CA, no bokeh CA, and speaking of that, also super smooth bokeh. With this lens and the TCs, image quality is no more a question of technology but of technique and conditions, that is wind and atmospheric distortions. Of course, I am convinced that it is no better than a 400/2.8 or 600/4, but I have never used these lenses.

The only point of criticism: While its weight is incredible, size is nothing remarkable - it is no shorter than any other 300/2.8 (the diameter is dictated by physics so no objection here), but maybe it would have been less stellar optically if Sony had made it any shorter. But what I really dislike is that the shade (reversed) is unnecessarily huge, in particular with the cover on. The lens itself doesn't feel that much larger or heavier than the old 70-200/2.8 GM, but with the hood on it... that's a different matter, and the cover cannot be used without the shade, so it is not possible to put the shade elsewhere if your means of transportation would suggest to do so. Does anybody know whether there's 3rd-party manufacturer of lens caps for super-teles?

One question, however, to the community - not the first time with this lens (have the same problem with my 70-200 and had it with the 200-600), I noticed a strange AF issue with long focal lengths: I still use an original a7R III, and I consistently get much better focus when not using a tripod, as if an inadvertently moving AF target is better than a stationary one. I did a lot of experimentation, with different AF settings, with and without stabilization, of course, and also choosing different parts of the subject as targets, to no avail. MF is not an option - it is too coarse, if I use 10x magnification I simply cannot turn the focus ring in the necessary small steps to achieve critical sharpness. Now, if I use short exposure times, great - that spares me the weight of the tripod -, but what if I'd like to use longer ones when doing landscape? Is that a problem of the a7R III that I wouldn't have with a newer body?

 

[Tony Rogers]

Got mine on Saturday. This lens completely wows me: It is at its sharpest right at 2.8 (on an a7R III, so still 42 MP), and it is sharp right into the corners, no matter if naked, with the 1.4x, or the 2.0x TC (where it is also already at its sharpest at 4 and 5.6, respectively). Totally usable with the 2.0x TC - I am really happy that I made use of the promotion to save 200 Euros after I dismissed the 2.0x TC with even the 70-200 GM II (which is by no means a bad lens). No noticeable CA, no bokeh CA, and speaking of that, also super smooth bokeh. With this lens and the TCs, image quality is no more a question of technology but of technique and conditions, that is wind and atmospheric distortions. Of course, I am convinced that it is no better than a 400/2.8 or 600/4, but I have never used these lenses.

Good to hear more good stories about this lens. The outstanding thing with most people who are interested in this lens though is, how is the speed and accuracy of C-AF? I don't know if you shoot any wildlife but, if you do, have you formed any opinions yet?

The only point of criticism: While its weight is incredible, size is nothing remarkable - it is no shorter than any other 300/2.8 (the diameter is dictated by physics so no objection here), but maybe it would have been less stellar optically if Sony had made it any shorter. But what I really dislike is that the shade (reversed) is unnecessarily huge, in particular with the cover on. The lens itself doesn't feel that much larger or heavier than the old 70-200/2.8 GM, but with the hood on it... that's a different matter, and the cover cannot be used without the shade, so it is not possible to put the shade elsewhere if your means of transportation would suggest to do so. Does anybody know whether there's 3rd-party manufacturer of lens caps for super-teles?

One question, however, to the community - not the first time with this lens (have the same problem with my 70-200 and had it with the 200-600), I noticed a strange AF issue with long focal lengths: I still use an original a7R III, and I consistently get much better focus when not using a tripod, as if an inadvertently moving AF target is better than a stationary one. I did a lot of experimentation, with different AF settings, with and without stabilization, of course, and also choosing different parts of the subject as targets, to no avail. MF is not an option - it is too coarse, if I use 10x magnification I simply cannot turn the focus ring in the necessary small steps to achieve critical sharpness. Now, if I use short exposure times, great - that spares me the weight of the tripod -, but what if I'd like to use longer ones when doing landscape? Is that a problem of the a7R III that I wouldn't have with a newer body?

 

[Arcimboldo]

Good to hear more good stories about this lens. The outstanding thing with most people who are interested in this lens though is, how is the speed and accuracy of C-AF? I don't know if you shoot any wildlife but, if you do, have you formed any opinions yet?

No, I haven't shot wildlife with it yet, but: The AF is fast, but it is not as lightning fast as, say, that of the 50/1.2 GM (which is almost ridiculously instantaneous). On the other hand, it's clearly faster than the 200-600. I have no comparison to the 400/2.8 or the 600/4. It may be better with a newer body - there are low-contrast situations where it hunts, which might actually be the same problem I described regarding AF on a tripod. Unfortunately, the last firmware update to the a7R III was 2019, so I'm not holding my breath for one to improve AF performance with the 300 GM. I'm not someone who expects firmware updates till the cows come home but bodies should be kept up to date with new lenses.

However, I'd like to wait for the a1 II before actually upgrading hardware. All in all, I guess I have the wrong body currently to really answer your question - always been more of a lens guy, as opposed to most.

 

[Impulses]

Does anybody know whether there's 3rd-party manufacturer of lens caps for super-teles?

Yes! No experience with them but I've heard good things:

Loading…

www.zemlinphoto.com

They make hoods too, I imagine one for the 300/2.8 is forthcoming. Can't help with the other question, sorry... The A7R IV is my only E mount body and I've not shot my 50-400 much on a tripod yet.

 

[Arcimboldo]

Does anybody know whether there's 3rd-party manufacturer of lens caps for super-teles?

Yes! No experience with them but I've heard good things:

https://www.zemlinphoto.com/product...rue&sa=false&sbp=false&q=false&category_id=60

They make hoods too, I imagine one for the 300/2.8 is forthcoming. Can't help with the other question, sorry... The A7R IV is my only E mount body and I've not shot my 50-400 much on a tripod yet.

Thanks, these seem to be exactly what I am looking for

 

[AlephNull]

I got mine on Thursday, but only got to use it on Saturday.

Got mine on Saturday. This lens completely wows me: It is at its sharpest right at 2.8 (on an a7R III, so still 42 MP), and it is sharp right into the corners, no matter if naked, with the 1.4x, or the 2.0x TC (where it is also already at its sharpest at 4 and 5.6, respectively). Totally usable with the 2.0x TC - I am really happy that I made use of the promotion to save 200 Euros after I dismissed the 2.0x TC with even the 70-200 GM II (which is by no means a bad lens). No noticeable CA, no bokeh CA, and speaking of that, also super smooth bokeh. With this lens and the TCs, image quality is no more a question of technology but of technique and conditions, that is wind and atmospheric distortions. Of course, I am convinced that it is no better than a 400/2.8 or 600/4, but I have never used these lenses.

I have tried it with and without the 1.4x, but I intend to give it a try with the 2x next weekend (it was quite hot, and the wildlife I was go to try to shoot with the 2x was hiding in the shade!)

So far I have only tried it with the A9 III, and the combination is exceptionally sharp. I do plan to try it on the A7RV - the extra pixels could show me even more of the sharpness.

The only point of criticism: While its weight is incredible, size is nothing remarkable - it is no shorter than any other 300/2.8 (the diameter is dictated by physics so no objection here), but maybe it would have been less stellar optically if Sony had made it any shorter. But what I really dislike is that the shade (reversed) is unnecessarily huge, in particular with the cover on. The lens itself doesn't feel that much larger or heavier than the old 70-200/2.8 GM, but with the hood on it... that's a different matter, and the cover cannot be used without the shade, so it is not possible to put the shade elsewhere if your means of transportation would suggest to do so. Does anybody know whether there's 3rd-party manufacturer of lens caps for super-teles?

There are no filter threads on the end of the lens, so it's understandable that there's nowhere to attach a conventional lens cap. And yes, the cover is bulky, but I like that it is well padded and I'm sure it protects the lens better than a regular lens cap. The bag is extremely well passed - I think there's 3cm of padding in the bottom of it. Interesting bag design, too - I quite like the "conical" shape - far easier to pack than the hard cases of the 400 and 600.

The hood is better than the design on the 400 and 600 - I have never liked the "screw lock" - the button lock is neater, positive, and can be locked and unlocked single-handed.

I'll have a look at the option one of the other respondents mentioned.

One question, however, to the community - not the first time with this lens (have the same problem with my 70-200 and had it with the 200-600), I noticed a strange AF issue with long focal lengths: I still use an original a7R III, and I consistently get much better focus when not using a tripod, as if an inadvertently moving AF target is better than a stationary one. I did a lot of experimentation, with different AF settings, with and without stabilization, of course, and also choosing different parts of the subject as targets, to no avail. MF is not an option - it is too coarse, if I use 10x magnification I simply cannot turn the focus ring in the necessary small steps to achieve critical sharpness. Now, if I use short exposure times, great - that spares me the weight of the tripod -, but what if I'd like to use longer ones when doing landscape? Is that a problem of the a7R III that I wouldn't have with a newer body?

I wonder if those slight movements of a handheld lens give the AF the chance to see what is closer to you? Closer objects will move less when the lens wobbles. It's a guess, nothing more.

Sorry to say it, but the new autofocus (first appeared on the A7RV, and appearing on every Sony body since) works very well on this lens. I'm not saying you have to move to the newer bodies (going from the A7RII to the A7RV would be a big jump!), but it is a major improvement.

I am using the lens hand-held only, but I'm considering a mono-pod. I really appreciate the light weight. I can live with the length - optics dictates that.

 

[The Ryantist]

This is excellent to hear! I've preordered one (hoping for it at the end of the month) and I plan to use it with the teleconverters a lot.

 

[PWPhotography]

Got mine on Saturday. This lens completely wows me: It is at its sharpest right at 2.8 (on an a7R III, so still 42 MP), and it is sharp right into the corners, no matter if naked, with the 1.4x, or the 2.0x TC (where it is also already at its sharpest at 4 and 5.6, respectively). Totally usable with the 2.0x TC - I am really happy that I made use of the promotion to save 200 Euros after I dismissed the 2.0x TC with even the 70-200 GM II (which is by no means a bad lens). No noticeable CA, no bokeh CA, and speaking of that, also super smooth bokeh. With this lens and the TCs, image quality is no more a question of technology but of technique and conditions, that is wind and atmospheric distortions. Of course, I am convinced that it is no better than a 400/2.8 or 600/4, but I have never used these lenses.

Glad you received so quickly and like it. Sony will only start delivering in USA on Feb 23, way later than in the other regions. USA is a very different market, guess lots of pre-orders. I pre-ordered on Nov 25, later than many. I am afraid will not get anytime soon.

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/pre...now-you-will-have-to-wait-6-months-to-get-it/

The only point of criticism: While its weight is incredible, size is nothing remarkable - it is no shorter than any other 300/2.8 (the diameter is dictated by physics so no objection here), but maybe it would have been less stellar optically if Sony had made it any shorter. But what I really dislike is that the shade (reversed) is unnecessarily huge, in particular with the cover on. The lens itself doesn't feel that much larger or heavier than the old 70-200/2.8 GM, but with the hood on it... that's a different matter, and the cover cannot be used without the shade, so it is not possible to put the shade elsewhere if your means of transportation would suggest to do so. Does anybody know whether there's 3rd-party manufacturer of lens caps for super-teles?

I intend to replace 200-600 G with this lens. I remember I saw the side by side comparison among 100-400 GM, 300 GM and 200-600 G in SAR site. 300 GM is obviously shorter and lighter than 200-600 G but fatter. You mean lens hood on your word 'shade'? Yah, those super-tele prime always have large lens hood (due to the large lens throat or diameter). Hope third-party will release a soft and foldable hood for 300 GM. I bought such one (RolandPro) for 200-600 G that is much easier to carry with than Sony OEM hood that I carried and used in the Africa trip in last August. Partially Sony OEM hood for 200-600 G is notoriously unsecured that easily detached and came off with a slight bump. Certainly I don't want the lens hood falling off and rolling to in front of lions ;-) Such soft foldable hood works perfectly.

https://www.aliexpress.com/i/3256803069686347.html?gatewayAdapt=4itemAdapt

One question, however, to the community - not the first time with this lens (have the same problem with my 70-200 and had it with the 200-600), I noticed a strange AF issue with long focal lengths: I still use an original a7R III, and I consistently get much better focus when not using a tripod, as if an inadvertently moving AF target is better than a stationary one. I did a lot of experimentation, with different AF settings, with and without stabilization, of course, and also choosing different parts of the subject as targets, to no avail. MF is not an option - it is too coarse, if I use 10x magnification I simply cannot turn the focus ring in the necessary small steps to achieve critical sharpness. Now, if I use short exposure times, great - that spares me the weight of the tripod -, but what if I'd like to use longer ones when doing landscape? Is that a problem of the a7R III that I wouldn't have with a newer body?

I no longer possessing A7r III. But I don't remember such AF issue on tripod from 70-200 GM (not use GM II much yet), 100-400 GM and occasionally 200-600 G. I assigned dial '1' to tripod mode - ISO 100, uncompressed (or lossless compressed) RAW, IBIS OFF, LENR OFF, AF-S mode. But you'd need a sturdy tripod. I'd suggest to try different AF area - Spot: M, Expand Sport etc.

https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1710/v1/en/contents/TP0001653124.html

In addition, there is a focus range choice switch in the lens. If your object is 6m away, try switch to '∞-6m' range.



--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[Arcimboldo]

Here are two of my test images at full resolution wide open, the first with the 1.4x and the second with the 2x TC. According to Google Maps the shown building is 900 m away, and you can still see details on the bark of some of the pines in the background:


With 1.4x TC

Note that the shown building is not parallel to the sensor plane - the left side is closer and thus a little blurry in the second image - this image is the best I didn't already throw away again in this respect. When I placed the exceedingly flat field a little closer, the left side would come into critical focus but then the trees in the background weren't. But no kidding: When you close down to f/8, diffraction kicks in. So the sharpness values you see here are theoretical - in practice, for example for landscapes, you will want to stop down to f/11 or so and won't get the maximum sharpness you see here:


With 2x TC

Weather conditions were low temperature with little shimmering but quite windy, so you will see some motion blur in the branches. Focus point was on one of the middle windows.

 

[Arcimboldo]

This is excellent to hear! I've preordered one (hoping for it at the end of the month) and I plan to use it with the teleconverters a lot.

Perfectly usable with the 2x TC but I wouldn't want to crop some more from there. So, somebody who needs 800 mm angle of view will probably want a 400 mm for that.

 

[Arcimboldo]

The only point of criticism: While its weight is incredible, size is nothing remarkable - it is no shorter than any other 300/2.8 (the diameter is dictated by physics so no objection here), but maybe it would have been less stellar optically if Sony had made it any shorter. But what I really dislike is that the shade (reversed) is unnecessarily huge, in particular with the cover on. The lens itself doesn't feel that much larger or heavier than the old 70-200/2.8 GM, but with the hood on it... that's a different matter, and the cover cannot be used without the shade, so it is not possible to put the shade elsewhere if your means of transportation would suggest to do so. Does anybody know whether there's 3rd-party manufacturer of lens caps for super-teles?

I intend to replace 200-600 G with this lens. I remember I saw the side by side comparison among 100-400 GM, 300 GM and 200-600 G in SAR site. 300 GM is obviously shorter and lighter than 200-600 G but fatter. You mean lens hood on your word 'shade'? Yah, those super-tele prime always have large lens hood (due to the large lens throat or diameter). Hope third-party will release a soft and foldable hood for 300 GM. I bought such one (RolandPro) for 200-600 G that is much easier to carry with than Sony OEM hood that I carried and used in the Africa trip in last August. Partially Sony OEM hood for 200-600 G is notoriously unsecured that easily detached and came off with a slight bump. Certainly I don't want the lens hood falling off and rolling to in front of lions ;-) Such soft foldable hood works perfectly.

https://www.aliexpress.com/i/3256803069686347.html?gatewayAdapt=4itemAdapt

I'm not talking about the diameter, which is pretty much a given with this aperture and focal length, but about the length/depth of the shade. If it wouldn't be so long but just cover the almost equally thick part of the lens when reversed, the whole thing would be more easily packable. But thanks for the tip on the collapsable shade/hood.

One question, however, to the community - not the first time with this lens (have the same problem with my 70-200 and had it with the 200-600), I noticed a strange AF issue with long focal lengths: I still use an original a7R III, and I consistently get much better focus when not using a tripod, as if an inadvertently moving AF target is better than a stationary one. I did a lot of experimentation, with different AF settings, with and without stabilization, of course, and also choosing different parts of the subject as targets, to no avail. MF is not an option - it is too coarse, if I use 10x magnification I simply cannot turn the focus ring in the necessary small steps to achieve critical sharpness. Now, if I use short exposure times, great - that spares me the weight of the tripod -, but what if I'd like to use longer ones when doing landscape? Is that a problem of the a7R III that I wouldn't have with a newer body?

I no longer possessing A7r III. But I don't remember such AF issue on tripod from 70-200 GM (not use GM II much yet), 100-400 GM and occasionally 200-600 G. I assigned dial '1' to tripod mode - ISO 100, uncompressed (or lossless compressed) RAW, IBIS OFF, LENR OFF, AF-S mode. But you'd need a sturdy tripod. I'd suggest to try different AF area - Spot: M, Expand Sport etc.

https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1710/v1/en/contents/TP0001653124.html

In addition, there is a focus range choice switch in the lens. If your object is 6m away, try switch to '∞-6m' range.

Tried different AF areas, tried the focus limiter also. But the latter isn't really the point, as the problem is not about focus speed but accuracy - accuracy is better when shooting hand-held, for whatever reason. My test images above are hand-held, too.

 

[Arcimboldo]

I got mine on Thursday, but only got to use it on Saturday.

Got mine on Saturday. This lens completely wows me: It is at its sharpest right at 2.8 (on an a7R III, so still 42 MP), and it is sharp right into the corners, no matter if naked, with the 1.4x, or the 2.0x TC (where it is also already at its sharpest at 4 and 5.6, respectively). Totally usable with the 2.0x TC - I am really happy that I made use of the promotion to save 200 Euros after I dismissed the 2.0x TC with even the 70-200 GM II (which is by no means a bad lens). No noticeable CA, no bokeh CA, and speaking of that, also super smooth bokeh. With this lens and the TCs, image quality is no more a question of technology but of technique and conditions, that is wind and atmospheric distortions. Of course, I am convinced that it is no better than a 400/2.8 or 600/4, but I have never used these lenses.

I have tried it with and without the 1.4x, but I intend to give it a try with the 2x next weekend (it was quite hot, and the wildlife I was go to try to shoot with the 2x was hiding in the shade!)

So far I have only tried it with the A9 III, and the combination is exceptionally sharp. I do plan to try it on the A7RV - the extra pixels could show me even more of the sharpness.

The only point of criticism: While its weight is incredible, size is nothing remarkable - it is no shorter than any other 300/2.8 (the diameter is dictated by physics so no objection here), but maybe it would have been less stellar optically if Sony had made it any shorter. But what I really dislike is that the shade (reversed) is unnecessarily huge, in particular with the cover on. The lens itself doesn't feel that much larger or heavier than the old 70-200/2.8 GM, but with the hood on it... that's a different matter, and the cover cannot be used without the shade, so it is not possible to put the shade elsewhere if your means of transportation would suggest to do so. Does anybody know whether there's 3rd-party manufacturer of lens caps for super-teles?

There are no filter threads on the end of the lens, so it's understandable that there's nowhere to attach a conventional lens cap. And yes, the cover is bulky, but I like that it is well padded and I'm sure it protects the lens better than a regular lens cap. The bag is extremely well passed - I think there's 3cm of padding in the bottom of it. Interesting bag design, too - I quite like the "conical" shape - far easier to pack than the hard cases of the 400 and 600.

The hood is better than the design on the 400 and 600 - I have never liked the "screw lock" - the button lock is neater, positive, and can be locked and unlocked single-handed.

I'm not talking about the diameter of the shade, which is pretty much a given with this aperture and focal length, but about the length/depth. If it wouldn't be so long but just cover the almost equally thick part of the lens when reversed, the whole thing would be more easily packable. Yes, the shade is more effective that way, but still... And the cover inherits that trait. But I found that I can snugly fit the lens incl. shade and cover into the 'Stash Master Pro' insert of my MindShift Rotation backpack, so all's good now I probably won't use the bag supplied with the lens for anything else but storage - if I don't use the MindShift insert for that, too.

I agree with you that the coupling mechanism of the shade is excellent, although I don't know that of the 400 and 600. The new one basically is a larger version of those of all the other GM lenses, so I wasn't surprised.

I'll have a look at the option one of the other respondents mentioned.

One question, however, to the community - not the first time with this lens (have the same problem with my 70-200 and had it with the 200-600), I noticed a strange AF issue with long focal lengths: I still use an original a7R III, and I consistently get much better focus when not using a tripod, as if an inadvertently moving AF target is better than a stationary one. I did a lot of experimentation, with different AF settings, with and without stabilization, of course, and also choosing different parts of the subject as targets, to no avail. MF is not an option - it is too coarse, if I use 10x magnification I simply cannot turn the focus ring in the necessary small steps to achieve critical sharpness. Now, if I use short exposure times, great - that spares me the weight of the tripod -, but what if I'd like to use longer ones when doing landscape? Is that a problem of the a7R III that I wouldn't have with a newer body?

I wonder if those slight movements of a handheld lens give the AF the chance to see what is closer to you? Closer objects will move less when the lens wobbles. It's a guess, nothing more.

Sorry to say it, but the new autofocus (first appeared on the A7RV, and appearing on every Sony body since) works very well on this lens. I'm not saying you have to move to the newer bodies (going from the A7RII to the A7RV would be a big jump!), but it is a major improvement.

Darn ;-) I planned to upgrade only to an a1 II, and nobody knows how long that will take.

I am using the lens hand-held only, but I'm considering a mono-pod. I really appreciate the light weight. I can live with the length - optics dictates that.

No, as opposed to the diameter, with a more aggressive telephoto design (which is basically retrofocal in reverse) it would have been possible to make the lens shorter (and there actually are shorter 300/2.8's on the market), but probably at the expense of IQ.

 

[The Ryantist]

Here are two of my test images at full resolution wide open, the first with the 1.4x and the second with the 2x TC. According to Google Maps the shown building is 900 m away, and you can still see details on the bark of some of the pines in the background:


With 1.4x TC

Note that the shown building is not parallel to the sensor plane - the left side is closer and thus a little blurry in the second image - this image is the best I didn't already throw away again in this respect. When I placed the exceedingly flat field a little closer, the left side would come into critical focus but then the trees in the background weren't. But no kidding: When you close down to f/8, diffraction kicks in. So the sharpness values you see here are theoretical - in practice, for example for landscapes, you will want to stop down to f/11 or so and won't get the maximum sharpness you see here:


With 2x TC

Weather conditions were low temperature with little shimmering but quite windy, so you will see some motion blur in the branches. Focus point was on one of the middle windows.

I'm glad you mentioned the non-perpendicularity of the building. The full size image looks really good, but the 100% crop shows only a small area is in focus

Also, 900 m (3000 ft) is a long way to see details at 100%. I shoot a lot of aircraft, and I've noticed that (especially when they're low on the horizon) atmospheric distortion starts to become pretty significant at 500-600 m (1500-2000 ft) distance. My ideal shooting distance for aircraft is 250-400 m (800-1200 ft).

 

[Arcimboldo]

Here are two of my test images at full resolution wide open, the first with the 1.4x and the second with the 2x TC. According to Google Maps the shown building is 900 m away, and you can still see details on the bark of some of the pines in the background:


With 1.4x TC

Note that the shown building is not parallel to the sensor plane - the left side is closer and thus a little blurry in the second image - this image is the best I didn't already throw away again in this respect. When I placed the exceedingly flat field a little closer, the left side would come into critical focus but then the trees in the background weren't. But no kidding: When you close down to f/8, diffraction kicks in. So the sharpness values you see here are theoretical - in practice, for example for landscapes, you will want to stop down to f/11 or so and won't get the maximum sharpness you see here:


With 2x TC

Weather conditions were low temperature with little shimmering but quite windy, so you will see some motion blur in the branches. Focus point was on one of the middle windows.

I'm glad you mentioned the non-perpendicularity of the building. The full size image looks really good, but the 100% crop shows only a small area is in focus

Also, 900 m (3000 ft) is a long way to see details at 100%. I shoot a lot of aircraft, and I've noticed that (especially when they're low on the horizon) atmospheric distortion starts to become pretty significant at 500-600 m (1500-2000 ft) distance. My ideal shooting distance for aircraft is 250-400 m (800-1200 ft).

I am assuming you talk about the 2x TC image. Which part do you feel is not in focus? As far as the building front goes, for me only the outer left side is out of focus, that is the left upper corner of the image. The rest of the front is pretty good, as is the right tree in the front as well as the trees in the back. I don't do pixel-peeping, my personal benchmark is print at 75 x 60 cm (30" x 24").

 

[The Ryantist]

Here are two of my test images at full resolution wide open, the first with the 1.4x and the second with the 2x TC. According to Google Maps the shown building is 900 m away, and you can still see details on the bark of some of the pines in the background:


With 1.4x TC

Note that the shown building is not parallel to the sensor plane - the left side is closer and thus a little blurry in the second image - this image is the best I didn't already throw away again in this respect. When I placed the exceedingly flat field a little closer, the left side would come into critical focus but then the trees in the background weren't. But no kidding: When you close down to f/8, diffraction kicks in. So the sharpness values you see here are theoretical - in practice, for example for landscapes, you will want to stop down to f/11 or so and won't get the maximum sharpness you see here:


With 2x TC

Weather conditions were low temperature with little shimmering but quite windy, so you will see some motion blur in the branches. Focus point was on one of the middle windows.

I'm glad you mentioned the non-perpendicularity of the building. The full size image looks really good, but the 100% crop shows only a small area is in focus

Also, 900 m (3000 ft) is a long way to see details at 100%. I shoot a lot of aircraft, and I've noticed that (especially when they're low on the horizon) atmospheric distortion starts to become pretty significant at 500-600 m (1500-2000 ft) distance. My ideal shooting distance for aircraft is 250-400 m (800-1200 ft).

I am assuming you talk about the 2x TC image. Which part do you feel is not in focus? As far as the building front goes, for me only the outer left side is out of focus, that is the left upper corner of the image. The rest of the front is pretty good, as is the right tree in the front as well as the trees in the back. I don't do pixel-peeping, my personal benchmark is print at 75 x 60 cm (30" x 24").

No worries, I was pixel peeping, probably too much, because I'm still trying to convince myself if this lens is worth the price for me These look really good when looking at the full size on a 4k monitor. But if I'm pixel peeping the 2x TC image, the tree in the foreground on the lower right corner looks a lot better than the tree in the upper left corner. But I'm also used to 24 MP bodies and not 42, so these might be better than what I'm used to.

 

[Arcimboldo]

Here are two of my test images at full resolution wide open, the first with the 1.4x and the second with the 2x TC. According to Google Maps the shown building is 900 m away, and you can still see details on the bark of some of the pines in the background:


With 1.4x TC

Note that the shown building is not parallel to the sensor plane - the left side is closer and thus a little blurry in the second image - this image is the best I didn't already throw away again in this respect. When I placed the exceedingly flat field a little closer, the left side would come into critical focus but then the trees in the background weren't. But no kidding: When you close down to f/8, diffraction kicks in. So the sharpness values you see here are theoretical - in practice, for example for landscapes, you will want to stop down to f/11 or so and won't get the maximum sharpness you see here:


With 2x TC

Weather conditions were low temperature with little shimmering but quite windy, so you will see some motion blur in the branches. Focus point was on one of the middle windows.

I'm glad you mentioned the non-perpendicularity of the building. The full size image looks really good, but the 100% crop shows only a small area is in focus

Also, 900 m (3000 ft) is a long way to see details at 100%. I shoot a lot of aircraft, and I've noticed that (especially when they're low on the horizon) atmospheric distortion starts to become pretty significant at 500-600 m (1500-2000 ft) distance. My ideal shooting distance for aircraft is 250-400 m (800-1200 ft).

I am assuming you talk about the 2x TC image. Which part do you feel is not in focus? As far as the building front goes, for me only the outer left side is out of focus, that is the left upper corner of the image. The rest of the front is pretty good, as is the right tree in the front as well as the trees in the back. I don't do pixel-peeping, my personal benchmark is print at 75 x 60 cm (30" x 24").

No worries, I was pixel peeping, probably too much, because I'm still trying to convince myself if this lens is worth the price for me These look really good when looking at the full size on a 4k monitor. But if I'm pixel peeping the 2x TC image, the tree in the foreground on the lower right corner looks a lot better than the tree in the upper left corner. But I'm also used to 24 MP bodies and not 42, so these might be better than what I'm used to.

No worries, either, I just wanted to know if we agree on the parts that are not in focus. And apparently we do, agree that is. However, and that is why I asked you that in the course of our other conversation, if you plan to look at your images on a 4k monitor in full size (which I take as 'fit to screen'), then maybe this lens is a bit of overkill, and the 200-600 might do. On the other hand, when your regularly pixel-peep, for example, because you want to read a small writing on a plane, then your requirements regarding sharpness are high, and atmospheric conditions, depth of field, motion blur, and AF might significantly lower your keeper rate, despite an/this excellent lens.

In any case, I was happy to be able to try out the lens timely anyway (winter on the northern hemisphere). I will try to get more images that show that the whole image can be tack sharp even with the 2x TC (and I will happily share them then), but right now the weather is stormy and rainy around these parts. I already managed to get those but threw them away unfortunately after peeping.

Right now I'm afraid that my problem is the AF of the a7R III: While it is pretty good with the naked lens, with the 2x TC it is a bit of a hit-and-miss affair. I thought that at least with landscapes (one of my two central use cases) AF wouldn't be problem, but now I found that it is when using a tripod, which is a pity as it hampers composition to photograph hand-held. I don't want to go a7R V or a1 just now, when what I really want is the a1 II that is not even announced yet. If Sony only would lower the price of the a1, which is really a bit expensive for what it is in the meantime, I would reconsider, but not for 7300 Euros.

 

[The Ryantist]

No worries, either, I just wanted to know if we agree on the parts that are not in focus. And apparently we do, agree that is. However, and that is why I asked you that in the course of our other conversation, if you plan to look at your images on a 4k monitor in full size (which I take as 'fit to screen'), then maybe this lens is a bit of overkill, and the 200-600 might do. On the other hand, when your regularly pixel-peep, for example, because you want to read a small writing on a plane, then your requirements regarding sharpness are high, and atmospheric conditions, depth of field, motion blur, and AF might significantly lower your keeper rate, despite an/this excellent lens.

Yes I agree, I'm still on the fence about just sticking with what I have. I already have the 100-400 GM with 1.4x TC, and I get excellent results as is. But with that combo I'm stopping down to f/11 for improved sharpness. Sometimes I do crop to effectively 800 mm and the results are still ok. I was hoping with the 300 + 2x TC that I could be 2 stops faster without increasing the weight much. I think 200-600 would be too heavy for me to hand-hold for long.

In any case, I was happy to be able to try out the lens timely anyway (winter on the northern hemisphere). I will try to get more images that show that the whole image can be tack sharp even with the 2x TC (and I will happily share them then), but right now the weather is stormy and rainy around these parts. I already managed to get those but threw them away unfortunately after peeping.

Right now I'm afraid that my problem is the AF of the a7R III: While it is pretty good with the naked lens, with the 2x TC it is a bit of a hit-and-miss affair. I thought that at least with landscapes (one of my two central use cases) AF wouldn't be problem, but now I found that it is when using a tripod, which is a pity as it hampers composition to photograph hand-held. I don't want to go a7R V or a1 just now, when what I really want is the a1 II that is not even announced yet. If Sony only would lower the price of the a1, which is really a bit expensive for what it is in the meantime, I would reconsider, but not for 7300 Euros.

This is interesting because your shots are at fast shutter speeds. Have you tried switching off OSS when you're on the tripod?

 

[Arcimboldo]

Right now I'm afraid that my problem is the AF of the a7R III: While it is pretty good with the naked lens, with the 2x TC it is a bit of a hit-and-miss affair. I thought that at least with landscapes (one of my two central use cases) AF wouldn't be problem, but now I found that it is when using a tripod, which is a pity as it hampers composition to photograph hand-held. I don't want to go a7R V or a1 just now, when what I really want is the a1 II that is not even announced yet. If Sony only would lower the price of the a1, which is really a bit expensive for what it is in the meantime, I would reconsider, but not for 7300 Euros.

This is interesting because your shots are at fast shutter speeds. Have you tried switching off OSS when you're on the tripod?

These were hand-held - it seems as if the AF is better with a bit of movement, don't ask me why exactly, but this is consistent on the a7R III. I really tried everything on tripod (which is an excellent heavy CF Gitzo): OSS off/on, different AF modes, AF areas, AF targets, you name it. The only thing that made a difference is shooting hand-held.

 

[Impulses]

Right now I'm afraid that my problem is the AF of the a7R III: While it is pretty good with the naked lens, with the 2x TC it is a bit of a hit-and-miss affair. I thought that at least with landscapes (one of my two central use cases) AF wouldn't be problem, but now I found that it is when using a tripod, which is a pity as it hampers composition to photograph hand-held. I don't want to go a7R V or a1 just now, when what I really want is the a1 II that is not even announced yet. If Sony only would lower the price of the a1, which is really a bit expensive for what it is in the meantime, I would reconsider, but not for 7300 Euros.

This is interesting because your shots are at fast shutter speeds. Have you tried switching off OSS when you're on the tripod?

These were hand-held - it seems as if the AF is better with a bit of movement, don't ask me why exactly, but this is consistent on the a7R III. I really tried everything on tripod (which is an excellent heavy CF Gitzo): OSS off/on, different AF modes, AF areas, AF targets, you name it. The only thing that made a difference is shooting hand-held.

Tried EFCS and e-shutter too? At slower SS a very stable tripod could actually amplify shutter shock if you're using straight mechanical... I know you said you tried everything but that still doesn't seem normal. I can see the TC hampering AF cause it's letting less light in, but I don't see why it would be better hand held.

 

[Arcimboldo]

Right now I'm afraid that my problem is the AF of the a7R III: While it is pretty good with the naked lens, with the 2x TC it is a bit of a hit-and-miss affair. I thought that at least with landscapes (one of my two central use cases) AF wouldn't be problem, but now I found that it is when using a tripod, which is a pity as it hampers composition to photograph hand-held. I don't want to go a7R V or a1 just now, when what I really want is the a1 II that is not even announced yet. If Sony only would lower the price of the a1, which is really a bit expensive for what it is in the meantime, I would reconsider, but not for 7300 Euros.

This is interesting because your shots are at fast shutter speeds. Have you tried switching off OSS when you're on the tripod?

These were hand-held - it seems as if the AF is better with a bit of movement, don't ask me why exactly, but this is consistent on the a7R III. I really tried everything on tripod (which is an excellent heavy CF Gitzo): OSS off/on, different AF modes, AF areas, AF targets, you name it. The only thing that made a difference is shooting hand-held.

Tried EFCS and e-shutter too? At slower SS a very stable tripod could actually amplify shutter shock if you're using straight mechanical... I know you said you tried everything but that still doesn't seem normal. I can see the TC hampering AF cause it's letting less light in, but I don't see why it would be better hand held.

I always use EFCS, I could try E-shutter, thanks. However, this is a difference manifesting after the exposure. But it doesn‘t look like motion blur, more like backfocus. But is that possible with mirrorless?