Sony 300mm 2.8 GM + TC2 vs 200-600mm： Which is Better？

So this is the Sony 300 2.8 G Master with the 2x teleconverter, making it a 600mm f5.6 lens. And this is the 200-600 G OSS that we all know and love. So in this video I want to test if this 600mm setup can perform as good as the 200-600 in terms of sharpness, autofocus performance, handling and so on. And if this setup is reliable enough to leave the 200-600 at home for those times when I'm only able to bring one lens. So when I posted my first impressions video, I got a lot of comments saying that this lens performs great with the 2x teleconverter. Some of you even said that it's sharper than 200-600. And since I now have these two lenses, I just had to compare them side by side to see if this is true. Because if this is the case, I won't bother bringing both the 200-600 and the 300 if I'm planning to travel somewhere. Then the 300mm plus the TC2 will do. Yeah, let's take a look. So I am aware that we're somewhat comparing oranges to apples here, considering the very big price difference between these two setups. But I feel like I genuinely want to know this, so why not make a video about it? Well, let's start with the weight. So the teleconverter setup weights in at 1960 grams with the lens hood and the lens foot because that's the weight when you're using it. And the 200-600 weights in at 2400 grams with the lens hood and the foot. And here you can see the size difference of these two lenses. So both of them are very packable when you remove the lens hood. Here it baffles me again how small the 300 actually is. Especially when you remove everything and pack it down. It's quite impressive. So let's start off with the thing you're probably wondering the most, the sharpness. So we're going to do some pixel peeping inside of Lightroom. And yeah, I'll see you in a minute. Okay, my friends, we are in Lightroom. And to the left here, we have the 300 with the teleconverter. And to the right, we have the 200-600, both at its widest aperture, so 5.6 and 6.3. And I don't know about you, but I think here the 200-600 is a bit sharper. Again, this is pixel peeping. Like both of these clearly are very sharp. So it's pretty ridiculous, but we're doing it. Like as you can see, the text is a little bit more contrasty on the 200-600 side, in my opinion, a little bit. And if we step down to 6.3 on the teleconverter setup, I find it to be pretty much the same in terms of sharpness. Maybe the 200-600 is a little bit sharper. But what do you think? But if we step down to F8 on the teleconverter setup, I think we're a bit sharper than the 200-600 at its widest aperture. So let's compare F8 at both setups. And here I think the teleconverter setup is actually a bit sharper. Especially if you look at the texture that we have up on the little heron here. On the 200-600, you can see a little bit of the detail. But on the 300, there's a lot of detail. So you can clearly see this kind of texture that the book is giving off. I don't know about you, but I think this is very impressive for a teleconverter setup. But again, remember, this is pixel peeping. We are zooming in a ridiculous amount to the point where it's kind of, I don't know, ridiculous to do this. But it's fun. You know, it's fun talking gears. So yes, here we have a different photo. Both at the widest aperture of the two lenses. Here, I honestly don't see any big difference at all, really. They both look very sharp. And both of them have a very nice contrast and this kind of 3D look to it. If we go down to the left here, we can see that the 200-600 is sharper down in the corner. I have no idea if this is because of the sharpness of the lens or if it's me focusing. Because if we go up here, you can see the left one is sharper than the right one. I think the focus is the difference here, but I'm not sure. But yeah, in a blind test, I could not pinpoint either of these setups. So yeah, they are both incredibly sharp. And I'm going to give some examples of the real-life subject here. So for a real-life subject like this, I find the sharpness to be almost identical, to be honest. It's very hard comparing it like this because the subjects are moving. The lighting conditions vary from a second to a second. And it's very hard to compare like this. But I managed to get this Nuthatch to perch on the same branch with the both lenses. And again, for a real-life subject like this, both lenses perform phenomenally good. The sharpness is outstanding. And so comparing different photos, I would say the sharpness is almost identical for this type of shooting. Sure, on the left side here, you can see more details in the feathers. But I think it's not really fair because he's having the sun on his face. And yeah, I've gotten similar results with the 200-600 many times where I can clearly see the feathers and so on. So I think it's honestly not really fair comparing it this way. So I'd say the sharpness is pretty identical, which is incredibly impressive for a teleconverter setup because usually teleconverters degrade the sharpness a whole lot. So something that I really like about the teleconverter setup is the bokeh quality. You can see it's a bit smoother than the 200-600. The prime look is obviously here, which doesn't come as a shock as it's a prime lens. But you get it. You get this very nice smooth background, which is sometimes for photos a deal-breaker. On this photo of rubble, however, I think the 200-600 performed better in terms of sharpness. But the bokeh quality of the 300 with the teleconverter is smoother and looks tasty, yummy and expensive. Which it is. Let's get back into the forest. Bye. So another important thing to compare is the autofocus performance of the lenses. So in my real-world experience so far with this setup, I find autofocus to be impressively fast, especially considering it's part of a teleconverter setup. However, I noticed that the 200-600 tends to have a bit more accurate autofocus when taking photos. So I recently went on a little red deer trip, which was a lot of fun, and I decided to bring the teleconverter setup with me. And there were moments when this setup missed focus. And when I came back, I had some photos where the focus was off and they weren't sharp and really usable. While this can occasionally happen on the 200-600 as well, I find it happening more frequently with the teleconverter setup. Yeah, I don't see it as a major issue because most of the photos I took were perfectly sharp, but it's definitely worth mentioning. So personally, I shoot a lot of videos when I'm out. And for video work, I find a zoom lens to be extremely beneficial. Like the ability to quickly change focal lengths, like going from a wide shot and zooming into a close-up in just seconds is very powerful when you're doing video. And since I don't use any ND filters when I'm out filming wildlife, because the hassle of it, I usually control the exposure with the aperture. So the 2.8 and 5.6 aperture that I get from this setup doesn't really play a significant role for me when we're talking like blurry backgrounds, as I tend to stop down to balance the exposure. So when filming in bright conditions, I prefer the flexibility that the 200-600 offers. However, in low light, having 2.8 and 5.6 with you can be the difference from like getting the shot versus not getting the shot. And why I'm mentioning the 2.8 aperture, I know we're talking 600 millimeters here, but that is with this setup, I always have the possibility to shoot at 300-2.8, which is one of the superior things about this setup in my opinion. But with this setup, you are limited to a focal length, either the 300 or the 600 millimeters, and that can be very limiting when you're filming. So for video, it really depends on what you're planning to shoot. So to wrap things up here, choosing between the teleconverter setup versus the 200-600, it really depends on what I'm like trying to shoot and what I'm planning to shoot. So the teleconverter setup is lightweight, which is a very big plus when you're like shooting handheld or you're carrying around the lens like this. It's easy to pack down in basically any backpack there is. And by just removing the teleconverter, you have 300 millimeter 2.8, which is superior in low light and easily the sharpest lens I have ever used. But there is a problem with using a teleconverter setup like this in my opinion. And that is that I sometimes find it a bit challenging like dealing with the teleconverter. And that is especially when I'm having to be extremely quiet or when in like tough weather conditions where the last thing you want to do is expose the fragile camera sensor. And then there's the whole process of like putting the lens cap back and stowing everything away safely. And it's just a hassle sometimes when you're out in the field. However, the 200-600mm on the other hand offers much more versatility with its wide zoom range, making it perfect to capturing fast moving wildlife or adjusting to like different distances and so on. And one technique I rely on pretty often when tracking birds is that I start on 200 millimeters. I track the bird in the viewfinder and then smoothly zooming into 600mm while having the bird like centered in the viewfinder. It's just so much easier to find a bird and keep track on it instead of like having a 600mm prime then sometimes you're lost when you're trying to look for the bird and so on. So yeah, that is one very big benefit to a zoom lens like the 200-600mm in my opinion. So while the 200-600mm has a slower aperture, which isn't great in low light, I find that its flexibility and the ease of use of that lens often makes it a more practical option for like overall birding and wildlife shooting. But for those planned out shoots where I know that the subject is going to be within a certain distance or I know that there are going to be like low light scenarios, I will choose the teleconverter setup. So I think this is a solid substitute for the 200-600mm when I'm traveling, though both lenses have their pros and cons. Just because the 300mm setup is like four times the price of the 200-600mm doesn't make it four times better in every aspect. So it really comes down to what you're planning to shoot. And for those times when I can bring both lenses, I have in my opinion the best combo possible for my type of shooting. I have the low light and I have the incredible sharpness of the 300mm if I really need that close-up bokeh shot of a bird that looks just tasty and super sharp. Or I have the flexibility and the versatility of the 200-600mm with the zoom perfect for like daylight filming and daylight shooting. Yeah, that's my thoughts about this whole setup. And one more thing, I've just ordered the 1.4 teleconverter and I'm so excited to try that out with the 300 and the 200-600mm. Maybe you want a video about that. If you do, please let me know in the comments. Bye. you