Every additional piece of glass you add degrades image quality, all else being equal. Stop and think about it. You have a $6,000.00 lens, and you are shooting it through a $500.00 converter. The quality is going to depend on the cheapest piece of glass. Why not slap a $50.00 filter on the front of that lens while you're at it?
@@alansach8437 This assumes the converter is using "cheap glass". The 300mm has 20 elements. The 600mm has 24 elements. So by your logic the 600mm has degraded image quality. Is the 600mm worse than the 300 because it has more glass?
I'm sure it's an awesome lens for those that can afford it and professionals. I chose the EF300mm f2.8 L lens and it adapts to my mirrorless Canon cameras and to my Sony camera with and without the EF 1.4x teleconverter. I got the lens and teleconverter for about $1,300. I use it on a tripod anyway so the weight is not an issue and I like being able to adapt it to both of my systems.
Wait why are you comparing it to 70-200 + TC? Surely the 300mm will have much better IQ. I want to see the 300 + 1.4 TC compared to the 100-400 and the 300 + 2.0 TC compared to the 200-600. Should I buy both the 100-400 and the 200-600 and save $2500 over the 300mm with two teleconverters?
The video looks awesome in HDR btw. I only knew because I started it on my Pixel 8 Pro, which supports HDR, unlike my monitor😅But the non-HDR version (on my monitor) looks good too, I seem to remember in the past HDR content sometimes looked wonky on non-supporting displays.
I am an A1 user (mostly with 200-600 lens but sometimes the 100-400) that shoots primarily wildlife. I am wondering if the 300mm with the 2x teleconverter might be a viable option (lighter weight too!) to the 200-600 at 600mm? I am hoping for improved image quality and focus performance. Thanks!
This is the first Sony lens that makes me want to rent Sony gear for Sports. The canon 300 2.8 EF is an incredible lens but the weight makes air traveling impossible. This is so tempting.
I remember when people used to travel with 400mm f2.8 and 800mm f5.6 2000s technology and without crying. They also learn to focus and the behavior of animals to anticipate peek action. We have become so spoiled.
Chelsea in action, what a beauty!!! I just bought the 600 f6.3 Nikon. It's a bit of a budget stretch, but I think if I were a Sony shooter, this one would certainly be considered. Using the 2X's TC and comparing to the 600 F4 would be interesting.
Usually I love your reviews Tony, but it would have been useful to have some wildlife examples, and more outdoor sports shots. You must have had really limited time with the lens.
Well I am a wildlife photographer, and I just ordered mine today. It will be a good addition to my 600mm 4.0. Yes I am one of thoses guys that carries around the big gun all day long, and I just love it, also with the 1.4 TC. I could also wait for the 400mm to get cheaper used, but I think that the 300 is better for me, as I would use it mostely in hides, where even the 400 might be too much as well as for lager mamals. And the 300 is light for traveling fitting in one bag with 600 and second back-up body.
I love shooting my Tamron 300mm f2.8. It adapts to any of my 35mm SLR's that I have the adapt-all mount for. And it also works on my Nikon D-5200. I picked it up when the prices were at the low point, around $200.
Just a comment, at 3:45 technically, the second base ISO for the A1 is at 500 ISO so it would have a preferably lower amount of noise using the 70200f2.8 w/ 1.4TC over the 320 ISO from the 300f2.8. Otherwise great video and solid looking lens. Would love to try it out.
Indeed! In fact in situations where Auto-ISO would hover between 200-500, I just manually set it to 500 ISO as the read noise and DR is better than anything except 100 ISO.
You got it! I wish there was a way Sony would allow us to jump over those in between ranges using Auto ISO. Even if it's not smooth transitions I would prefer the option. If we need to increase or decrease exposure slightly the increased dynamic range of the Base ISO's would actually allow us to do that so win win.@@userjjb
Nicely done with the HDR in video. Many youtubers have don't get the editing right on HDR and it looks really funky. Please keep that new type of video presentation.
I can’t believe this!! You didn’t get your ZF yet!! I brought mine on 26th October. Please make a video when you get it. I’m waiting for your insight and also Tony’s technical review and brackdown of all the technical aspects. Hope to see the video soon. I always love watching your videos. Keep up the good work. Thank you
Would really, really like to see this in the Canon lineup. Weight, size and price makes it very attractive. I want a fast 300mm for the background blur and fast shutter speeds. No need for a large, super-expensive zoom - the 70-200mm f/2.8 takes care of flexibility already.
I have a TikTok idea for y'all. What about NPC or game character selector but photo edition. When Chelsea was bobbing with the lens showing it's weight it looked like that a bit. Then you style then with various photographer archetypes: the Olympian, the wedding photographer, the birder, etc. Like dress Tony up for the birder with a shitload of camo. This plays into Chelsea's strengths of humor, acting, and styling and into Tony's strength as a robot.
I would love to see what that lens could do on a tracker pointing anywhere in the cosmos.....at f/2.8 it might qualify as a "light bucket" and become a legendary lens for night photography... light weight would be a big plus, also
Is this a preproduction copy? Appears you shot this in pretty warm weather with all the leaves on the trees in Connecticut. Wondering if the public copies will be any different
Love your videos and I'm still learning from "Stunning Digital Photography". I have a Sony a7iii, with the Tamron 70 - 180, f/2.8. If I use "clear-image zoom", to get reach of 270m. If I decide not to blow up to poster size, I can add in "Super35" and get over 400m at 10.6 mega pixels. (Could probably use Topaz post). Think I'll save the $6K.
The first running sequence creeped me out. Expected a machine gun, got total silence instead. Completely caught me off guard. Don't even know why. I have an a9. xD
Don't get me wrong - I love you guys and your videos. What almost always comes to mind when watching your videos though is, that the Audio is kinda all over the place. Jumping in Volume a lot and especially the post commentary sounds like Tony has an implanted microphone in his jaw. I'd suggest not getting so close to the mic in post so the two very different sound stages don't diverge so much. Edit: I realize this might not be that bad on phones, but there are still some of us left, that watch you guys on actual monitors/TVs and have speakers bigger than a fingernail. 😅
It better be a really good lens when you are paying six grand for one focal length. and the New A9lll is pretty amazing. seems like its by far the best sports camera out there. and no rolling shutter for video is also amazing. and any flash sync speed. but I got sticker shock when they said the price was $6000 dollars. because I just assumed it would be a similar price to the A9ll. now I am wondering what cameras the new global shutter is going to find it's way into. it seems like the A7S4 would be an obvious answer because it is video oriented. but I'm wondering if it will be in the new A1 2 or in any of the less expensive cameras. personally I would rather have a global shutter with 42mp like my A7r lll. that does 20fps. I am not sports photographer that needs 120 fps.
It weighs basically half of the Nikon or the Canon. I would love to see if it has the so-called "focus breathing" problem at astronomical levels. It's unlikely that anyone is going to test it, unless it does not because Sony flies everybody around the world and people love it. Yes, Nikon does not have a Z 300mm f2.8 but I will say the Nikon telephone line is the most interesting right now, even if they don't fly RU-vidrs around. Nikon also has a 120--300 f2.8 but it's not native, and it's far heavier. The true Show stopper is the new camera, but this lens is a good addition to the line, in particular, because of the 1470g
Suprised to see the HDR effect. What camera log setting did you shoot this with? HLG? Or was it also a „shot with an iphone“ thing^^ To be honest, looking at it on my smartphone, i dislike the brightness a bit. It just hurts my eye when you look at static bright stuff for minutes. Love HDR on TV, but not on my small bright phone. Anyone feel the same?
I used the old Nikon 300 f2.8 VRii with all the Nikon TC's as my main wildlife and sport lens for many yrs. It is a great lens and very versatile. But the price is crazy. Nikon is doing well on the telephoto lens department with many affordable options, but their camera's is costing them a lot of market share as the Z9 and Z8 are both expensive. The A9ii is a great camera and Sony proofs that the 24 mp sensor is a sweet spot for many. Or the barrier for the so called "global shutter". We are now talking marginal gains that cost exponentially more and, in my view, the FF systems will price themselves out of the market. Professional photographers struggle to make a living, high income "photographers" chase technology and jump from one brand to the next. To be sarcastic the test Tony did is not even a challenge for a D3500 with a 70-300 kit lens. But this is the space of professional youtubers who make their money from the next bunch of "make no sense to upgrade" group. To be honest 99% of A9 users who will "upgrade" to the A9iii will not use or benefit 1% from these "upgrades". Have fun and spend the money.
I'd still rather use the Sony 70-200mm F2.8 GM II and have the teleconverter on hand for extra range if need be... And save half the cost for 98% of the performance.
RE: Your sponsor: "Adorama makes buying gear easy and fun". Twice now they've shown something in stock, and I've purchased it, only to have them tell me later in the day that it was actually on backorder, so they converted my sale to a preorder. In the first instance, they actually sold the item out from under me to someone in store. In the second instance (yesterday) they showed the Sony 300mm in stock. I purchased it, only to have them email me later in the day that it was on backorder. Simply unacceptable customer service. I've never had this issue with B&H. Shipping is also faster with B&H.
Tony / Chelsea - What are your thoughts on purchasing the 300mm f 2.8 instead of the 200-600 to be used as wildlife and sports. And using the 1.4 teleconverter vs. 2.0??
À choisir entre un : - Canon R3, objectif 100-300 ou - Sony A7rV 300 Mmm Gm plus un A7rV 70-200. - Sony A7rV 400 mm gm Quelle configuration choisir entre ces deux là ?? Pour du sportif f( football )
I am a performing arts and sports photographer for a local high school. I shoot both Canon and Sony gear. My only options for F2.8 super telephotos have been with the EF mount. My preferred daytime super telephoto is the Tamron 50-400mm e mount or Sigma 60-600mm ef mount. These zoom ranges give me the option of shooting the field events with only one camera. During the past year my preferred set up has been the Sony a9 with a canon 300 mm F2.8 with the mc11adaptor in the auditorium and at night games. My favorite setting has been to use the C1 button on apsc mode which allowed me to switch between 300mm to 450mm with one button. Now Sony is giving me an option that is lighter faster focusing sharper and with the apsc switching on the lens. Wow. I’m getting one. I’m not so sure I can afford an a9iii too but that would be like shooting with lighting.
But the question is firmware for me. Ridiculous lack of updates. 5 months now to wait to get less than later tier cameras have. And it's not a firmware limitation.
I think 300 2.8 mm is a very specific use lens, some sports settings and that's all, for wildlife I think you need to go further out, unless you shooting natural history from a hide in a very sympathetic, informed and discreet way
Answering the question. With options like Topaz Photo Ai and new changes to Lightroom, there is no longer a need to spend $6000 on a F 2.8 lens. You can use the far less expensive 200-600 G lens and using the editing tools get the same or better results.
WE just came back from South America wildlife trip. The 200-600 excels in good light but go into jungle/forest areas at f.6.3 and the ISO is much too high for a good result. Yes we use Topaz but but the shots are really not good. Now 300mm at f.2.8 should give us what we need, even with a 1.4 converter. Barry, Australia.
I don't think the 600mm is very common, for most sports, except soccer and football, that's almost too much. Your subject has to be far away. I have used the 200-600mm for football, and the players fill the frame from 60-80 yards away at 600mm if I remember right. The 400mm (and Canon 500mm) and 70-200mm are way more popular. Plus, they're a little lighter to be toting around.
Whoa, whoa… was it just me or was this video a bit “R” rated?! With Tony’s comment, “Ah, that bokeh looks so good.” then Chelsea rump shakes, and later in the video Chelsea saying they were going inside to take more photos in their testi, and Tony starts to talk about bokeh balls.😂 Love you guys!😅
I love my Nikon 300/2.8 and 200/F2. Sadly my pictures don't look anything better than what the iphone can do even when my lenses paired with a Z9. I like it but everyone tells me to just snap pics with the iphone like everyone else.
