A loss of confidence, what to do with 600F4

[Astacus]

You may recall that earlier this year I had a terrible accident with the 600F4/A1 and the lens shattered into two parts (pictures not included as very distressing!).

But, insured and by June, was rewarded with a brand new 600F4.
Except that I am having a bit of a crisis of confidence with it. Also, the emergency replacement 200-600 we managed to get in Costa Rica did a superb job, even in poor-ish light.

Fast forward to last month when we went to Madagascar.
I made the decision to take to 200-600 and the 70-200, and leave the 600F4 at home.
And, I am actually glad that I did.

The opportunities for a clean line of a sight to a bird or other animal were remarkably limited.
The national parks have, at best, narrow paths, and it was quite common (=usual) to leave the path and force your way through primary or secondary rainforest, ford across streams, and on day one, I realised that the monopod to support the 200-600 was in the way. From then on, all hand held or rested against a branch. I could not have caried/hand held the 600F4 all day (12 km walks, 30 degrees) and be able to use it!

Further, I would never have been able to put the degree of separation between me and the subject to match the minimum focusing distance of the 600F4. It would have been so frustrating.

Here are my options,
Take a hit and sell the 600F4 for cash

part ex for a 300F28 (I have a 2.0TC). as a high quality fast prime combo. I'd expect there would be a balance in my favour (A1II? to replace the A1).

I guess what surprised me was the fact that the 600F4 has specific use case, where there is a clean line of sight to a distant subject. This is not typical of our birding trips (Costa Rica is the exception)

So, I'm in a bit of quandry. I appreciate I am fortunate to be able to consider these options (it's my main hobby, I otherwise live economically).
I'd appreciate your take on this.

To brighten this gloomy message, here are the first few shots from a wonderful country. Madagascar is so unique.
Rpb

p.s. Oh yes, I went 5000+ miles to see a stonechat! But, this is a Malagasy stonechat, which doesn't 'chat', it sings. Weird.

 

[iamdlewis]

If you don't see yourself using a lens then you have a very expensive paper weight. Sure it sucks that you will take a hit but is that worse than it just sitting there and you looking at it things about what it cost? You can probably get more if you sell if yourself than if you sell/trade it into some camera reseller.

The 300mm+2x will save you a little weight vs the 200-600 but you will be again stuck with the same limiting factor you faced with the 600mm. Just something to think about.

Don't feel bad about traveling so far to see something like that I traveled 8800 miles to get my first photos (not really why I went) of a Black-Necked Stilt the very same bird used in the logo of my local birding organization.

 

[Astacus]

If you don't see yourself using a lens then you have a very expensive paper weight. Sure it sucks that you will take a hit but is that worse than it just sitting there and you looking at it things about what it cost? You can probably get more if you sell if yourself than if you sell/trade it into some camera reseller.

The 300mm+2x will save you a little weight vs the 200-600 but you will be again stuck with the same limiting factor you faced with the 600mm. Just something to think about.

Don't feel bad about traveling so far to see something like that I traveled 8800 miles to get my first photos (not really why I went) of a Black-Necked Stilt the very same bird used in the logo of my local birding organization.

I hear you. But doesn’t the 300/tc2 give me f4 with GM quality -I hear great things. I’m comparing actual sizes as well. Packing the 600 f4 was a major challenge - I could get the lens just in my biggest bag, but the hood went into my checked luggage.

Selling privately brings so many risks these days that I’d be nervous of being ripped off.

Still cogitating…the 600f4 is a stunning lens but not if it stays at home

 

[iamdlewis]

I hear you. But doesn’t the 300/tc2 give me f4 with GM quality -I hear great things. I’m comparing actual sizes as well. Packing the 600 f4 was a major challenge - I could get the lens just in my biggest bag, but the hood went into my checked luggage.

No. 2.8 * 2 is 5.6. With any teleconverter you will see some loss in image quality, from photos here it doesn't look like much loss.
Here are a couple questions for you:
Are you happy with the image quality of the 200-600?
Is being limited to 600mm an issue with the way that you like to photograph subjects?
Do you think 300mm would be a useful focal length?

I personally like the zoom option for most of my photo outings and am very happy with what I get from the 100-400 and 200-600. I would have no issues with being limited to 600mm for many outings but do not see that as a best use for my funds currently.

Selling privately brings so many risks these days that I’d be nervous of being ripped off.

Totally understand. I've traded in gear to major resellers mostly because I don't want to deal with this type of worry. Though there is a huge difference between trading in old bodies and cheap lenses vs a 600 F4. Wish I could help with this but I do kind of feel like those after a 600mm f4 would be less likely to be scamers.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I have the 200-600 and the 600 f4.

I don't consider the 600 to be a travel lens. I will take it on local outings where I may wander a mile or two, tops. Or sit in my car boot or a hide with it. I'm happy to keep it for that and accept the limitations of the other lens when I can't have it. There have been numerous occasions when the 200-600 would be the better choice of lens, for anything bigger than birds for example.

I'm not worried about the money tied up in the 600. I bought it second hand for a fair price and could possibly make a few quid if I sold it privately.

They're both great lenses, and in my book, have different applications with some degree of overlap.

I have bought the 300 f2.8 recently but haven't had chance to try it out with the 1.4 or 2 x TC. Time will tell if this changes my view, but generally I don't like changing lenses in the field anymore than I have to.

I wouldn't worry too much about getting ripped by a buyer. Marketplace attracts a metric tonne of lowlife scammers, but I have found wording adverts very specifically weeds most out. Statements like "absolutely no postage or collection", "payment by bank transfer with ID prior to taking the item", "no warranty offered or inferred, sold as seen", "a written receipt will be given and a copy kept", help no end. They may seem unfriendly, but a genuine buyer will understand.

 

[Astacus]

I have the 200-600 and the 600 f4.

I don't consider the 600 to be a travel lens. I will take it on local outings where I may wander a mile or two, tops. Or sit in my car boot or a hide with it. I'm happy to keep it for that and accept the limitations of the other lens when I can't have it. There have been numerous occasions when the 200-600 would be the better choice of lens, for anything bigger than birds for example.

I'm not worried about the money tied up in the 600. I bought it second hand for a fair price and could possibly make a few quid if I sold it privately.

They're both great lenses, and in my book, have different applications with some degree of overlap.

I have bought the 300 f2.8 recently but haven't had chance to try it out with the 1.4 or 2 x TC. Time will tell if this changes my view, but generally I don't like changing lenses in the field anymore than I have to.

I wouldn't worry too much about getting ripped by a buyer. Marketplace attracts a metric tonne of lowlife scammers, but I have found wording adverts very specifically weeds most out. Statements like "absolutely no postage or collection", "payment by bank transfer with ID prior to taking the item", "no warranty offered or inferred, sold as seen", "a written receipt will be given and a copy kept", help no end. They may seem unfriendly, but a genuine buyer will understand.

Ahhh thanks. I agree schlepping around with the 600F4 is no joke! Tossing the camera bag nonchalantly over your shoulder as carry on when you can feel the bruise developing... 'this bag? just my camera bag'

Also, thanks for the advice re selling. I've dome similar things in the past.This time round the MPB offer was not good, and I'm exploring other options. I might put the 600 F4 on here. Because it is the disaster replacement, (mid 2024) it is essentially brand new unused.

I'm also looking at the 300/28 as a fast lens + TC. We'll see..

Appreciated

 

[Astacus]

No. 2.8 * 2 is 5.6. With any teleconverter you will see some loss in image quality, from photos here it doesn't look like much loss.
Here are a couple questions for you:
Are you happy with the image quality of the 200-600?
Is being limited to 600mm an issue with the way that you like to photograph subjects?
Do you think 300mm would be a useful focal length?

I personally like the zoom option for most of my photo outings and am very happy with what I get from the 100-400 and 200-600. I would have no issues with being limited to 600mm for many outings but do not see that as a best use for my funds currently.


Totally understand. I've traded in gear to major resellers mostly because I don't want to deal with this type of worry. Though there is a huge difference between trading in old bodies and cheap lenses vs a 600 F4. Wish I could help with this but I do kind of feel like those after a 600mm f4 would be less likely to be scamers.

Honest questions:

Are you happy with the image quality of the 200-600?
Yes. The last trip to CR showed me just what I could achieve.

Is being limited to 600mm an issue with the way that you like to photograph subjects?
Yes, 'too close' came the cry! Either because the subject is bigger than the frame, or because it is inside the unforgiving minimum focussing distance (that's a recurrent experience, and when you're constrained to trails, it can be brutal).

Do you think 300mm would be a useful focal length?
Ahh well. I think we have to see this as the 300 but F2.8. Great for low light safari/mammal shots. For birds, I'd be adding the 1.4 or in extremis 2.0TC. Interestingly, I went back through LR to look at older experience., In 2014 we were in Tanzania and I was touting the Nikon 3000F28, a Nikon 2.0TC and a 12mpix Nikon D3S body (parenthetically, the only camera body I regretted letting go). The images are still pleasing, 10 years on - see https://rjbwild.smugmug.com/Africa/South-Tanzania/Siwandu/i-zScJhZS

And, I'll also say that tools like Topaz Denoise make high ISO shooting much less of a concern. Parenthetically, Topaz Denoise also adds a touch of sharpening that I often find enough - some of Topaz Sharpen options can be very aggressive.

(Side thought - what we need is a zoom TC from 1x to 2x! I'm sure someone can explain why that's impossible.)

 

[Astacus]

No. 2.8 * 2 is 5.6. With any teleconverter you will see some loss in image quality, from photos here it doesn't look like much loss.
Here are a couple questions for you:
Are you happy with the image quality of the 200-600?
Is being limited to 600mm an issue with the way that you like to photograph subjects?
Do you think 300mm would be a useful focal length?

I personally like the zoom option for most of my photo outings and am very happy with what I get from the 100-400 and 200-600. I would have no issues with being limited to 600mm for many outings but do not see that as a best use for my funds currently.


Totally understand. I've traded in gear to major resellers mostly because I don't want to deal with this type of worry. Though there is a huge difference between trading in old bodies and cheap lenses vs a 600 F4. Wish I could help with this but I do kind of feel like those after a 600mm f4 would be less likely to be scamers.

DErr! I knew that, of course. How embarrassing.

 

[iamdlewis]

And, I'll also say that tools like Topaz Denoise make high ISO shooting much less of a concern. Parenthetically, Topaz Denoise also adds a touch of sharpening that I often find enough - some of Topaz Sharpen options can be very aggressive.

Agreed. With the AI one making it much easier to denoise the RAW files in mass with/out sharpening makes ISO much less important.

You got a couple nice action shots in that Tanzania collection and by action shots I mean pooping shots.

 

[iain clyne]

I have the 200-600 and thought about the 300 2.8 when it came out but decided to stay with the 200-600mm

 

[Astacus]

Agreed. With the AI one making it much easier to denoise the RAW files in mass with/out sharpening makes ISO much less important.

You got a couple nice action shots in that Tanzania collection and by action shots I mean pooping shots.

Heheh! We are both biologists and have an interest in scent marking. The cheeky oxpecker was a chance shot.

 

[Astacus]

I have the 200-600 and thought about the 300 2.8 when it came out but decided to stay with the 200-600mm

It really is a good lens. And f5.6 or 6.3 at 600mm is nothing.

 

[Landshark99]

I have the 200-600 and thought about the 300 2.8 when it came out but decided to stay with the 200-600mm

me too

 

[spudhead]

I bought the 300 2.8 e-mount and already had the 1.4x and bought the 2x, I have had it since august and used it mainly with the 2x so far and it works well, for your purpose birds . I should say I still have and still use the a-mount version on e-mount lea-5 adaptor as well, and only bought the new one because Sony have made sure the a-mount tcs do not work on the e-mount adaptors. The new version is way lighter but for sure is not sharper than my a-mount version, I have added a few shots with e-mount version and 2x it is only 453kb so a huge crop a1 and a9

• ILCE-1
• FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/4000 sec
• ISO 1250

• ILCE-1
• FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 200

• ILCE-1
• FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 1000

• ILCE-9
• FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 500

 

[Astacus]

I bought the 300 2.8 e-mount and already had the 1.4x and bought the 2x, I have had it since august and used it mainly with the 2x so far and it works well, for your purpose birds . I should say I still have and still use the a-mount version on e-mount lea-5 adaptor as well, and only bought the new one because Sony have made sure the a-mount tcs do not work on the e-mount adaptors. The new version is way lighter but for sure is not sharper than my a-mount version, I have added a few shots with e-mount version and 2x it is only 453kb so a huge crop a1 and a9 View attachment 69575View attachment 69577View attachment 69578View attachment 69579

Love to stonechat and goldfinch! So, do you reckon that for wildlife/birds, the 300mm + 1.4 or 2.0 TC might outperform the 200-600? As well as giving a super sharp 300mm f2.8 as required. That, and the 70-200 GMII (already in the bag) should give a lot of coverage of FLs. The ne missing thing is that I also popped the 1.4 TC on the 600mmF4 for 840mm. I can live without that - small birds at those distances are often messed up by atmospherics anyway.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Rog342]

I have the 200-600 and thought about the 300 2.8 when it came out but decided to stay with the 200-600mm

Thanks for all the above, an interesting discussion.
I have found with my A1 that I prefer using the 100-400 GM over the 200-600 G lens based on weight, low light conditions, and above all image quality. I have found both teleconverters to be a bit disappointing regarding image quality and max F-stops; but I am a bit of a pixel peeper!
I would be very interested to know anyone's thoughts on how the 300 with a teleconverter would compare with 100-400 lens in the real world?

 

[iamdlewis]

300 GM = https://www.alphashooters.com/community/threads/sony-fe-300mm-f2-8-gm-oss-image-thread.8647/
300 GM + 1.4x = https://www.alphashooters.com/community/threads/sony-fe-300mm-f2-8-gm-oss-1-4x-tc-image-thread.9040/
300 GM + 2x = https://www.alphashooters.com/community/threads/sony-fe-300mm-f2-8-gm-oss-2x-tc-image-thread.8660/

Your results may vary but all these folks give a decent variation of situations

 

[spudhead]

Love to stonechat and goldfinch! So, do you reckon that for wildlife/birds, the 300mm + 1.4 or 2.0 TC might outperform the 200-600? As well as giving a super sharp 300mm f2.8 as required. That, and the 70-200 GMII (already in the bag) should give a lot of coverage of FLs. The ne missing thing is that I also popped the 1.4 TC on the 600mmF4 for 840mm. I can live without that - small birds at those distances are often messed up by atmospherics anyway.

Thanks for the insight.

For sure the 300 is sharp on its own the bee above is shot with 300 2.8 no tc, 300 2.8 and 1.4tc great from wide open , 300 2.8 and 2x tc has done a better job than I thought it would do. I have had the 200-600 from launch day way back and its great and I have had good results with the 1.4tc with it in decent light. You have the 600 f4 so are well aware of what is possible with high end prime lenses, now the light is fading here in the uk I have been using the 24 mp old a9 mk1 with the combo because the noise is a good bit lower than the a1, and I have been happy with that combo.

 

[Astacus]

All very helpful thoughts and advice. There's no doubt I would lose something if I let the 600F4 go, But, all I read about the 300F28 is reassuring:
Works well with 1.4 and good with 2.0 TCs
A lot lighter - future trip has a strict baggage allowance for light planes.
Here's the killer - the minimum focusing distance of the 600F4 has already been a problem, and in Madagascar there was nowhere to 'step back' in the rainforest. The 300F28 has a MFD less than the 200-600 even.

So, this is my current plan. And, in passing, shout out to LCE Chester who have always treated me extremely well, even when I seek to correct mistakes and impule purchases!

 

[spudhead]

I don`t think you will be disappointed with the 300 2.8 and either tc. good luck

 

[etiennescamera]

It would be really nice to see a head to head comparison of the 600 f4 vs 300 f2.8 with 2xTC. I have just returned from a photography safari in the Okavango, where I used the 600 f4 for about 44% of my shots, 100-400 for about 55% and 24-105 for 1%. Traveling with the 600 f4 is hard going because of size and weight. On the game drive vehicles I was fortunate to always have an open seat next to me, but without this luxury, I would have struggled to use the 600 f4, so now I am seriously considering letting it go and replacing with 300 f2.8 and 2xTC. My problem is that my previous experience with a 1.4xTC on my 100-400 has been really disappointing. I am afraid that I will experience the same disappointment and there is no way I would be able to afford reversing that decision, once taken.

 

[spudhead]

It would be really nice to see a head to head comparison of the 600 f4 vs 300 f2.8 with 2xTC. I have just returned from a photography safari in the Okavango, where I used the 600 f4 for about 44% of my shots, 100-400 for about 55% and 24-105 for 1%. Traveling with the 600 f4 is hard going because of size and weight. On the game drive vehicles I was fortunate to always have an open seat next to me, but without this luxury, I would have struggled to use the 600 f4, so now I am seriously considering letting it go and replacing with 300 f2.8 and 2xTC. My problem is that my previous experience with a 1.4xTC on my 100-400 has been really disappointing. I am afraid that I will experience the same disappointment and there is no way I would be able to afford reversing that decision, once taken.

I have the 100-400 and with the 1.4tc, I agree that combo is not great in my limited testing with the pair. But the 300 2.8 prime with the 1.4 is very good and the 2x has been better than I thought possible.

 

[etiennescamera]

I have the 100-400 and with the 1.4tc, I agree that combo is not great in my limited testing with the pair. But the 300 2.8 prime with the 1.4 is very good and the 2x has been better than I thought possible.

Thanks, that sounds very promising

 

[Unframed Dave]

A few observations on the 600 f4 versus the 200-600.

I'm currently schlepping around spanish reserves with mine. I will take it where I know the terrain quite well and won't be walking more than a couple of miles.

Firstly, why am I doing this, when I also have the 200-600 with me? It's lighter, the sun is out most of the time and f4 really isn't needed in terms of light.

All good points, I do love a good argument with myself.

Two main reasons, I packed it, so I will bloody well use the damned thing and it separates the subject from the background so beautifully. Secondly, it delivers the goods, you cannot fail to be impressed with the image quality this lens delivers when you do your bit.

Are there any downsides? There I go again....

Yes, obviously it's a dead weight akin to a small baby to lug around. I have managed to calibrate my monopod exactly to act as a counterweight when I rest the grip on my shoulder. I can walk like this quite nonchalantly for an hour or two unless I encounter an incline then I invariably slam the bottom of the pod into ground and flutter around trying to avoid dropping a small cars worth of pound coins into the baked earth. A less than flattering appearance.

Then there is the matter of close focus distance. Chiffchaffs are like pigeons in trafalgar Square here. You pretty much can't turn round without one appearing. Yesterday one popped onto a reed head with the dying sun shining thorough it, literally golden hour summarised. At around 4.4 metres away, I just could not get focus locked on and as we all know, with wildlife, 10cm is way more than enough to make or break a shot. With the 200-600, I would easily have got the shot, the close focus is almost halved.

So which one will come on my next walk?

It'll definitely be one of them.....

 

[Astacus]

A few observations on the 600 f4 versus the 200-600.

I'm currently schlepping around spanish reserves with mine. I will take it where I know the terrain quite well and won't be walking more than a couple of miles.

Firstly, why am I doing this, when I also have the 200-600 with me? It's lighter, the sun is out most of the time and f4 really isn't needed in terms of light.

All good points, I do love a good argument with myself.

Two main reasons, I packed it, so I will bloody well use the damned thing and it separates the subject from the background so beautifully. Secondly, it delivers the goods, you cannot fail to be impressed with the image quality this lens delivers when you do your bit.

Are there any downsides? There I go again....

Yes, obviously it's a dead weight akin to a small baby to lug around. I have managed to calibrate my monopod exactly to act as a counterweight when I rest the grip on my shoulder. I can walk like this quite nonchalantly for an hour or two unless I encounter an incline then I invariably slam the bottom of the pod into ground and flutter around trying to avoid dropping a small cars worth of pound coins into the baked earth. A less than flattering appearance.

Then there is the matter of close focus distance. Chiffchaffs are like pigeons in trafalgar Square here. You pretty much can't turn round without one appearing. Yesterday one popped onto a reed head with the dying sun shining thorough it, literally golden hour summarised. At around 4.4 metres away, I just could not get focus locked on and as we all know, with wildlife, 10cm is way more than enough to make or break a shot. With the 200-600, I would easily have got the shot, the close focus is almost halved.

So which one will come on my next walk?

It'll definitely be one of them.....

I resonate so much with this very amusing post!

Especially the bit about hammering the monopod into the ground on inclines. Like you, I can walk miles with the A1/600 balanced over my shoulder. Another annoyance. There's no gimbal, so the camera/lens has to pivot by rotating the lens plus monopod, fine until you need to go to extreme angles up or down, then it is a pain. Fortunately, the cobra system quick release/attach works like a dream.

But, the killer for me is the frustration of min focusing distance. The 600 would have been a bloody nightmare in Madagascar - catching on branches and vines, not being able to get away from the bird, etc..

So, the decision has been made - p.ex the A1/600F4 for the A1Mk2 and the 300F2.8 (mfd same as 200-600) and is a happy bedfellow with 1.4TC and maybe the 2.0TC. And, a lot less weight. On an early trip to TZ I took a Nikon 300f2.8 with a 2X TC, attached to (my GOAT camera) Nikon D3S with a humble 12mpix. So, with all the advances in mirrorless bodies inc 50-60mpix, and the gains in lens design, I'm hoping this will be a decision I'll not regret.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I use on of these, and despite taking a while to get used to, I now find it a great help.

My wife uses one of these, and it is very good. Not for me though as I need the lens and pod attached to each other for carrying purposes.