Hello Mark, first of all thank you for the detailed look at the new Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM OSS lens. I had the honor of being part of the lens testing while shooting raptors, both statically and in flight on a Sony A1 camera. I compared image results with several lenses with the Sony FE 100 - 400mm GM, the Sony 400mm f/2.8 GM and the Sony FE 200 - 600mm. The results were very surprising to me Sony 200 - 600mm G and Sony 100 - 400mm GM sharpens very quickly. Image quality lacks micro-contrast and fine details in more action shots. The Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS lens was also a slight disappointment. Microcontrast was, let's say, passable at a higher level than the two previously mentioned lenses. The results of the overall technical output and lens contrast are above average. After comparing photos from all these lenses, I compared the output quality with the new Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM OSS and I have to say with 100% certainty that sharpness, micro-contrast and overall color rendering is the absolute best of the Sony FE 300mm f /2.8 GM OSS even with teleconverters. This lens is in my opinion the best current telephoto lens that can be varied by the owner to 420mm or 600mm or 900mm when using Apsc mode. I personally owned a Sony FE 200 - 600 telephoto lens, but after testing this lens I sold the lens and will be getting this and the TC 2x. Thank you once again for the great work you provide to your viewers. I look forward to your next great videos. Best regards, Miloš
Thanks for your input - you may be someone who would enjoy my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel. An additional 30+ hours of Patreon-only video seminars + learning resources you can download (Raw files, eBooks and Camera Setup files).
Hello Milos :) I'm mostly using my 100-400 GM with 1.4×tlc and A7IV for bird photography (mostly small birds, sometimes owls). I'm thinking about buying a new 300mm GM lens, but I know that in 99% of situations, I will be using it with 2xtlc. When putting things like that on the table, do you think that it still will be an upgrade when it comes to sharpness and AF performance? Thanks a lot in advance for your help!
Thank you for pointing out how diverse a lens like this can be. I've never understood the default perspective that wide lenses are optimal for landscapes and telephotos are otherwise to be ignored. I feel like telephotos for landscapes and cityscapes are like a superpower, even at as much as 1200mm (not including crops)! Where wide often requires far more patience and preparation in terms of getting those optimal conditions, telephotos give you so many opportunities to discover landscapes almost anywhere and at any time. This isn't to say waiting for perfection isn't worth it and that wides aren't also a great choice. It's more to say I'm baffled by these limiting rules of thumb, and I roll my eyes at folks who regurgitate them as unbreakable law.
I agree - I will shoot the 'Street' when I am in a city, but If I want to photograph the city itself I will mostly do it from 3 Kms or more away and use a telephoto focal length. Sometimes I can even photograph the city with a telephoto in the city. Here is a link to showcase the perspective compression: flic.kr/p/R6c3Ja
I have the 200-600mm and have shot with a rented 600mm f4 but just couldn't justify the expense. I have the 300mm pre ordered as at half the price of the 600mm prime and performance from early users with the teleconverters I already own I think it will really hit a sweet spot for me. I can't wait to take this out for wildlife this spring and high school sports next year. Thanks for the detailed hands on review it made me more confident I am making a good choice!
I love this lens focal length! It is so flexible! Your reviews are excellent! I especially like that you focus on use cases and application of features instead of technical tests. Thank you for that. Don’t get me wrong, I think technical tests are also useful, but nobody else does a real-world experience review like you do. Your examples are stellar. I have the 100-400, and the 200-600 and enjoy using them. The 400 and 600 primes are financially out of my reach, largely because I just don’t think I’ll use them enough to justify the cost. This one hits home. I was saving for an A1 II when it is launched. That account might get emptied for this lens. I hope Sony ups their game with an improved 2x teleconverter.
Thanks for the positive feedback - that means a lot to me. Sony give me a small annual retainer for my work as an Ambassador, but I re-invest this entire amount in funding my location shoots. I could just talk-to-camera from a studio setting for an hour (a lot faster than going out on location for a week), but I would much prefer to talk to images the product is capable of capturing and use comparison charts. Apparently this is not the best approach for attracting a lot of followers, as many viewers prefer to watch a 'personality' pass judgement on a product after taking a few snaps captured on short outing close to their studio. I still, however, think I have the best job - shooting without a client or Sony telling me what to shoot or what to say.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills and this is exactly why I am happy to be a patron. Keep up the great work Mark. I'm in pretty much the same boat as David. I have 70-200 MKII, 100-400 & 200-600 plus the 1.4 but I'll be adding this lens to my kit and probably be good.
@@yourongyang8901 I've seen the raw files and the image quality with the 2x in those samples is excellent. I think it may have an edge on the 200-600 because the f5.6 vs 6.3 would mean lower ISO and therefore less noise and I think the noise would be more of a factor than the differences in sharpness.
Thanks for this review. I have this lens and find it brilliant for my sport and action photography. I appreciate all the insight you offer on how this lens performs with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. I will bring both to extend my reach when I leave in a few weeks for a photo safari in the Northern Serengeti. I am excited to see the results with, and without.
Thanks so much for the review and the high res files on flickr. That sharp with the 2x is fantastic and I'll definitely be adding one of these lenses to my collection.
Hi Mark, thank you very much for this review. It is much appreciated. As a wildlife photographer, it looks like this amazing lens pairs really well with the 1.4x and 2x TCs. In this sense, I believe that a good strategy for Sony might have been this lens, but with a built-in TC (if that was optically possible, of course). Other than that, looks like a dreamy affordable prime lens for us nature photographers! Cheers!
always a great pleasure to see you on youtube You are a reference for my choice of Sony equipment Your videos are very clear and precise. Sincerely a french
Join me on Patreon for the best Alpha Support and Guidance. A single $10 Membership fee includes access to my 600-page camera-specific eBooks + Over twenty 1-hour member-only seminars + cameras settings files + access to the Raw files from the lens and camera reviews (there is no contract or commitment beyond the first month). www.patreon.com/markgaler
Hi Mark, what is the type of membership to be able to get personal advice?, I once subscribed to your basic ($10/month) , but, all that I was able to get is access to your existing material, any question I would ask in you Patron site, I would get a standard response for the folks owning that website that was of little help. On another topic, I was browsing the Alpha Universe site, and was looking for you under Alpha Ambassadors, and couldn't find you there, I thought you were a member of that select group.
I shoot F1 for a photo agency and have been blown away by the detail that the 300mm + 1.4TC provides. I already have the 600mmF4, which is also razor sharp, but now I have the choice to carry the 600mmF4 or the super light 300mm w/1.4TC - which can be handheld all day - with not a single loss of image sharpness and quality. Thank you, SONY, for engineering such outstanding glass.
excellent review! 300mm at 2x is still hard to see the different and when a 600mm f4 at 16k it looks similar to something at this combo no brainer and the option to have 300 to 400 and 600 range when you want is the bonus! light weight hand held ! yep notthing wrong in many categorie.
Excellent lens. Hope to own one in the future. But, I'm not a pro and I've been happy with my 200-600mm G for long shots. Years ago I did have the 600mm and 300mm Canon L lenses which were beasts to carry. Lighter smaller lenses are very welcome these days.
The 200-600 is a very good lens but the F2.8 requires that very large front element. I think Sony have done a good job with this lens (keeping the size and weight down).
Great video Mark. I checked stock at B&H and they had them with overnight free shipping. Should be delivered tomorrow sometime. I’ve got the 1.4 teleconverter with a A1. I’m stoked to see UPS show up.
I just ordered it based on this review with the 2x TC. I will run it next to my 200-600 to see how it compares. If I'm still not satisfied I'm going to get the 600GM for birding. The sigma 500 is intriguing too but at 5.6 + capping at 15 fps I am not sure it's as good as this setup.
Unfortunately there were no A9lll cameras sent to Australia for review purposes. I’ll be lucky to get my review out this side of Xmas as I am heading of for an extended location shoot shortly.
Espectacular lens, but in my opinion, a little shorter for birding and WL. Hope that Sony bring some lenses like the Nikon´s 500mm f5.6, 400mm 4.5 or the 600mm f6.3. Lightweight and more affordable prices. Thanks for your work Mark!
Hi Mark, Thank you so much for this nice review. I'ma birder and use the LOVERLY 200-600 mm. But after this lightweight lens, Thinking starts! You made me Crazy [in the sense of humor] 1) Sony A 1 2) Sony A 6700 3) Sony 300mmf 2.8 Time is on my side [Rolling Stones]
I have the 600GM and 400GM and placed a pre order for the 300GM, once I realized the weight reduction made it even lighter than my Olympus 300PRO f4 I use as my light option. Out of curiosity, the 300GM does not use Fluorite like the 400/600 does. I was always made to believe that Fluorite was superior.
I have to show my ignorance now and say that I don't really understand the difference between Fluorite and Fluorine coatings (the 300 GM having the latter). I was most impressed, however, with the sharpness of the 300 GM lens with a 2.0x Tele, as I have never really been a fan of this teleconverter prior to this lens (always opting for the 1.4x Tele instead).
Thanks for the reply. It is the results that matter more than specs of course. Out of interest, I find the 2x on the 400GM adequate but the 2x on the 600GM is phenomenal as long as atmospheric effects do not degrade it. Fluorite elements seem to have a profile of providing the most chromatic correction, ED elements are fluorite doped glass to give similar effects in maybe an easier to work with material at less cost. Some have said in the past that it required 2 ED elements to equal the corrections of one fluorite element. Thus I wondered if the 300GM was less corrected? Fluorine coatings have no optical effect, but repel oils and fingerprints.@@AlphaCreativeSkills
Thanks for the information (education). This lens is incredibly sharp (I also own the 135 and 400 GM lenses). The low weight means that I will now carry the 300 during those times where I have no opportunity to carry the 400 (I often travel with no checked luggage). I make Raw files of my lens and camera reviews available on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel (as well as providing camera setup files and eBooks).
Superb review Mark, thank you🙏🏽. Do you think the 300mm gm is sharper than the 400mm gm? A few people think the 600mm is sharper than the 400mm & the way your 300mm images work so well with both TCs is stunning. Your review has got me really excited! 😂
What people think and what people can prove are two different things. Bench-testing 10 lenses and then producing detailed MTF charts is what you can prove. In real-world use, discussing the differences in sharpness between three G Master primes is, quite frankly, mystifying. Pick the one that suits you budget and size limitations because the differences in sharpness might not even be able to be detected when viewing the images on an 8K monitor.
The weight, size and price are very tempting Mark. However I'm still thinking I need to add the 400 instead. 400 @ f2.8 is simply amazing and with a tc can be 560 f4. I saw you mentioned earlier you were going to keep your 400 for one year and then decide but I'm asking if push came to shove and you could only have one lens (large prime) right now which of them would it be?
I am travelling much lighter these days and would take a 300 as carry on luggage but not the 400. I have really only been happy with the 2x teleconverter on the 300 GM and 70-200 F4 Macro G OSS lenses, so the 300 GM can become a 600 F5.6 compared to the 560 F4 of the 400 prime. I provide personal support and equipment guidance on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel.
If the lens does not have a massive "focus breathing" not the videographer's one but the photo one (at close focus is far less than 300mm) and the image quality is there the new lens is amazing. It's 220g heavier than the Nikon 400mm f4.5,just twice as heavy as the Nikon 300mm f4.0 PF, and half the weight of the Canon and Nikon's 300mm f2.8
I was today photographing birds with this 300mm f2,8 and 1,4tc and the sharpness was amazing with my a7C ll. I guess I have to get 2,0 tc for my wildlife photography too ,cheers
Anything released prior to the 100-400 GM probably needs to be updated if it is expected to keep up with an A1. The 100-400 was released on the same day as the A9, so it was already designed to shoot at 20fps. I have shot sports with this lens and have no issues with it. It can struggle when the subject approaches the minimum focusing distance, but as the minimum focusing distance is very close, it is not something that most sports photographers will encounter. A MK II version could probably be made a little lighter and with slightly faster focus, but they would not be the major improvements we saw with the FE 70-200 F2.8 GM II compared to the MK1
@@AlphaCreativeSkillsAs I’m in the market for precisely this, I’m glad to hear your perspective. My primary bodies are A1s (and I’ve recently picked up the A7CR) and I’ve been reluctant to purchase a major lens when it seems so comparatively old, particularly given what Sony has been accomplishing with its awesome revisions. Plus, now I’m seeing what the 300 is capable of and I’m definitely at a crossroads. I could see it finding a place in my bag far more often than the 400 (which I’ve needed to rent on two occasions), but for those instances when I need longer (often, and I’ve been getting by as best as I can with the 200-600), giving up even one stop is really tough to swallow along with some of the detriments (however minor) the teleconverters bring. So it’s basically get the 300 and enjoy a potentially more versatile lens, get the 400 but used to offset its age and the dent in my wallet, or wait for a revised 400 of my dreams. Difficult.
It's very plausible for sports, indeed. But man, my dream lens is the FE 400mm f/2.8 GM for "night" wildlife filmmaking with the A7S III. Can't afford it, for now. 200-600mm G is still impressive and happy with it.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills Indeed! In your use cases it makes sense as it's more suitable and versatile and with a 50MP it should be perfect to crop in when needed.
Each lens has its advantages linked to its Focal length. The advantages of smaller and lighter lens were outlined in this video tutorial. I offer personal support and guidance on Patreon.com/markgaler
I am concerning this for portraits. I think it will be similar to the look of the canon 200 f2, which I love the look of in portraits. The 300 being a native lens to my Sony I feel is the better option.
The equivalent aperture of the 200 F2 would be F3 at 300mm - so yes, this would be a similar look at maximum aperture. The 300 has lightening fast AF and will almost certainly prove to be a sharper lens when someone creates independent MTF charts for this lens.
I have seen the latest NR algorithms and they are not a replacement for a clean image. Having said that, future sensors will be so good that NR algorithms will be as useless as flash synch limits. Anyway, this new lens is ace.
I have to make a decision to buy the 100 - 400mm o the 300mm f2.8. I own in this moment the 70- 200 f. 2.8. My use is for horses and wildlife Birds. I also have the 1.4 teleconverter. I would be happy if you can give me your opinion. Thanks a lot.
Mark's Alpha Support channel is Patreon.com/markgaler Advice to choose the most appropriate lens to meet a photographers needs is an extended conversation rather than a quick answer, as it has to take in the available budget + size, weight and IQ preferences of the individual photographer. Admin Staff for Mark Galer
I like your thinking ...I would welcome an F2.8 135 and 300mm F4 for my light travel kit. I am currently using the excellent FE 70-200 F4 Macro G with 1.4x teleconverter to fulfil this role.
Wonderful presentation. At about the 19 minutes mark, you show how you would go into the setup/dial customize setting to change function ring(lens) from Full Frame to crop. But to best of my knowledge that option is not present in the firmware of either my A1 or A9ii. So, how does that customization occur without a firmware update? Or is that a menu option on the lens itself??
FE 300mm+2.0x converter makes it a f/5.6. Thats 1/3 of a stop difference compared with the 200-600mm. You could 've compared the FE 300mm F2.8 with Canon RF 100-300mm F2.8
The 300 can be a 600 F5.6 but the 200-300 can never be a 300 F2.8 ... that's the point. I don't test Canon lenses for Alpha owners who don't own Canon cameras.
Hi Mark, I paid for mine and waiting for it to be released. Do you know what collar lens foot will fit on it? I need a new foot for my tripod and want to order it ahead of time.
As far as I am aware (I too am waiting for my own 300 to arrive after returning the review sample many months ago) you can change the foot but not the collar the foot attaches to. No doubt companies such as Leofoto will manufacture replacement feet for this lens, if you are looking for one with an arca swiss foot. I rarely use tripods with these lenses so will just add an arca swiss QD plate to the foot.
That would indeed be interesting but that's never going to be possible for a reviewer to test if Sony send just a single reviewer product to the region and give the reviewer one weekend to shoot with the product.
Hey Mark it is a beast is out my price range... , I have another question if I may, is the A7Rv a bad combo with the 200-600? for birding? i want the 61mgp or cropping and the aps-c 26mgp looking great, I use the A9 for the fast bird in flight with the 200-600 and the 1.4x works great I tought I heard you explain, that using the right settings on the A7Rv is a reasonable camera with the 200-600 on slow flying birds in flight...in one of your videos am I right? Thank you in advance...
My choice for rapid moving subjects is the A1, but the other late-model cameras are up to the task, so long as you don't expect a 100% success rate. Lens choice is a very personal decision. I have a lens choice video on my RU-vid channel or I can offer more personal guidance on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel.
Thanks@@AlphaCreativeSkills Mark, yes the A1 should be my first choice, but the A7Rv is the best next thing a used one... 4-axs LCD and a better autofocus...arccording to other users, a used A1 is still expensive in the Netherlands...and a 75/80% succes rate is good enough for me 📸
I don't generally do these side-by-side reviews as I work on location. Imagine stalking a Kangaroo in a forest with two of these lenses and expecting the kangaroo to stay still between comparison shots. I daresay someone will bench-test them side-by-side in a studio. Very few people who watch this video will actually take the trouble to zoom in on the ultra high resolution images I am sharing (less than 0.5% from my Flickr stats). I also share the Raw files from my lens reviews with my Patrons so they can do side-by-side comparisons in Lightroom. I have only ever borrowed the 600mm as it is just too big to shoot hand-held for more than a couple of minutes and I don't work with monopods.
Mark, Great review , question, at 11:50 , comparing against the 200-600 and the 300 with 2X tele, did you say that the max aperture of the 300 with the the 3X would be 2.8?, I thought that the teleconverters would affect that and probably would be ABOUT 5.4 ?..... also, I can see a problem carryng this lens without a lens cap, I don't want to be using that large cover they provided, do you know if there are third party vendors that offer a lend cap that would fit this lens?......
The only way I can correct mistakes after I have released a video is to blur part of the image or take down the entire video. At several other points in the video I list F5.6 as the effective working aperture when using the 2x Teleconverter..
Thank you for nice video ,I got my lens yesterday ,maybe I was the first in Finland. I have one question .My body is the new a7C ll. I could not find how to customize the control ring in this body -there was only way to master the focus button. Maybe it is only on more professional bodies... Cheers
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? The 400mm is too heavy and expensive for me. I am hoping for improved image quality and focus performance. Thanks!
It's a better option for me, which is why I showed the lens alongside the 200-600 and compared its size and weight. It is, however, a much more expensive option.
Much more versatile than the 200-600 (wide F2.8 aperture at 300). The 200-600, however er, is plenty fast enough and sharp enough at 600. I provide a DNG Raw file download service for my Patrons on Patreon.com/markgaler for users to determine if a lens is sharp enough for their needs. I don't do comparison bench-testing reviews as I am a working location photographer.
Contact the tour operator to see how close they will be getting your to there wildlife. You haven't mentioned the camera you are taking and the ability to crop close is dependent on the resolution. I offer personal support to Alpha users on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel.
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 )
@@AlphaCreativeSkills thanks To choose between: - Canon R3, 100-300 2.8 lens or - Sony A7rV 300 Mm Gm + an A7rV 70-200 F2.8. - Sony A7rV 400mm gm Which configuration to choose between these Three ?? For sports (football)
The weight is to die for.. but I find 300 often not enough for wildlife.. even in the zoo for most cases? How about for safari in Africa for example.. I guess most of the time tele converter still required?.
These are nervous wild animals I photographed with the 300mm. If you can't crop tight with this gear at a zoo (a high resolution sensor helps) then you are at the wrong zoo.
12:03; Aperture when using the 2x tele converter - won’t that for all practical reasons be the half? I.e 1/5.6 vs 1/2.8 (Edit: you are correct at 14:00)
It was an honest error and unfortunately can't be corrected now. I will try harder next time. You didn't mentioned if you enjoyed the rest of the video.
I was about to buy the 400mm last year, but saw some images with a lot of CAs and not so great sharpness. Now with the 300mm and owning one from Sony back for my a99ii I am curious of this lens suits me and is even ahead in terms of sharpness compares to the 400mm. Your video shows great results with both, but also better with the 300mm. I am still not sure how big the difference really is 🥲
I make available full-resolution images on my Flickr Pro account for the 300 and 400 primes. I also make available Raw files for my patrons on Patreon.com. I have not noticed any significant chromatic aberrations on either the 300 or 400 lenses - nothing that impacts my personal workflows. The 300 is a no-brainer if you are looking for a half-size, half-weight, half-price lens. The 400 GM is a must-have lens for most Pro Sports photographers using Sony A9 and A1 cameras.
With the technology that Sony has developed over the last 15 and the knowledge of Canon producing a 100-300 f/2.8 They should have done the same. As a music photographer the focal range from 24mm to 300 is the most important. Sony could have nailed that range with two lenses 24/70 and 100/300 with the option of using the crop mode on the A7 bodies which would bring 300 up to 450mm. I'm sure it will prove to be a great lens but not for me.
TL;DR: Canon setup: two lenses, combined 24mm-300mm at f2.8, $12,500, 8.7 pounds (3,946g). Sony setup: three lenses, combined 24-300 at 2.8 (but you lose everything between 200mm and 300mm), $11,100, approximately 7.08 pounds (3,210g). Sony setup with teleconverters: five lenses, 24-300 at 2.8, 98mm-280mm at f/4, 140mm-400mm at f/5.6, 420mm at f/4, and 600mm at f/5.6, $12,200, approximately 7.90 pounds (3,584g). Canon setup with teleconverters: N/A (see below) To sum, it's about what you value in terms of overall weight, kit complexity, and flexibility. Ignoring the massive holes in third-party RF support, both systems have arguably excellent native options. Live shows are a great example. The 24mm-300mm range is indeed crucial and worth it for many of these photographers, especially at a constant f/2.8, even if it means 23% more weight (provided it's not some marathon festival or the 12-hour wedding equivalent). Clearly, though, Sony is no slouch. Also, for what it's worth, 2.8 is indeed awesome, but I personally prefer to photograph live shows with much faster primes. It's definitely inconvenient and often requires a minimum of two bodies (goodbye weight savings), but the results are usually worth it. Still, I'd love to have 24mm-300mm at 2.8 as an option, especially given that last 100mm of range. And now my TL;DR needs a TL;DR. 🤷♂️ ------ The meat: While I think that Canon's 100-300 2.8 is pretty damn cool - let alone the seemingly awesome 24-105 2.8 they just announced - it's all about what you prioritize in terms of kit. The 100-300 and 24-105 cost $9,500 and $3,000, and weigh 5.8 pounds (2,631g) and 2.9 pounds (1,315g) respectively. Combined, these total $12,500 and 8.7 pounds (3,946g). Conversely, the same constant apertures and focal ranges with Sony's latest-generation kit would require the 24-70 GM II, the 70-200 GM II, and the 300 GM - plus you lose all focal ranges between 200mm and 300mm. The prices of these lenses, however, are currently $2,300, $2,800, and $6000 respectively. In the same order, the weights are 1.53 pounds (695g), 2.31 pounds (1,045g), and 3.24 pounds (1,470g). These make for combined totals of $11,100 and 7.08 pounds (3,210g). To the latter two of those Sony lenses, you can also add a pair teleconverters (1.4X and 2.0X) at a cost of $550 each, bringing you to a total of $12,200. These weigh 0.37 pounds (167g) and 0.46 pounds (207g), and sacrifice one and two stops respectively. Total kit weight is 7.90 pounds (3,584g). This opens up options such as 98mm-280mm at f/4, 140mm-400mm at f/5.6, 420mm at f/4, and 600mm at f/5.6. Canon also makes RF teleconverters with similar factors. They cost $500 for 1.4X and $600 for 2.0X. Here's Canon's current statement on lens compatibility: "This extender is only compatible with the following RF lenses RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM, RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM, RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM, RF600mm F4 L IS USM, RF600mm F11 IS STM, RF800 F5.6 L IS USM, RF800mm F11 IS STM, RF1200mm F8 L IS USM." I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether there are workarounds in practice, but according to Canon itself, these teleconverters are not currently compatible with either the 24-105 or the 100-300 (or even Canon's 70-200). This is definitely a factor in terms of flexibility and value. Either way, there are benefits and drawbacks to both setups. Personally, I prefer the weight savings, flexibility, and value even though I'd absolutely love for Sony to make both of those zooms at a constant 2.8 (plus lighter, with faster performance, and a great selection of on-lens controls for less money). If nothing else, covering that 200-300mm range without teleconverters is certainly compelling. Plus, I think Canon has a real hit on their hands with this 24-105 2.8, especially if you factor the power zoom add-on. Hopefully its video focus doesn't detract from stills performance. I doubt it will in any material way. I fully admit a lot of the RF glass is fantastic. Again, though, it's about what you value. Do you want to carry two heavy zooms for more money and greater focal range options in the moment (definitely useful), or three lighter ones for less money? Will you always need all three lenses all the time? That is, are there any scenarios where having two much smaller, lighter and less expensive lenses covering 24-200 outweigh having to carry both the 24-105 and the 100-300 at all times to cover the same range (and then some)? Similarly, are there times when you can get away just the 24-105 for most things? Or maybe you just want the 300 and don't mind carrying 1-2 teleconverters to maximize your longer focal length options. I can see arguments for all these scenarios and more. And what about space in the bag? Carrying two longer, heavier zooms might not always work depending on the bag and its configurability, but then again you don't also have to carry the 300mm if you want maximum range despite still maintaining some semblance of portability given its awesome size and weight relative to performance. And then I can't help but shake two key things: The first is Sony is incentivized to make these amazing lenses lighter while retaining excellent performance at a comparatively lower price, I think, in part due to the competitive pressure that they've placed on *themselves* due to how open the E mount is. Even if you only ever buy native glass, you still benefit from this. The same can also be said of their bodies when several companies rely on Sony sensors (meanwhile I'm thinking of the Z8 and Z9 with all their great updates compared to, say, the a1 as an example of a Nikon competitive advantage despite using Sony sensors). Canon's RF options are heavier and in many cases cost more overall and offer fewer on-lens controls. Some of that can absolutely be credited to innovation. The 100-300 at 2.8 and 24-105 at 2.8 are unquestionably awesome options, especially if they perform to Canon's historically high standards. But they're also realistically your only options in that system simply because Canon only doles out the RF mount piecemeal to other manufacturers. They've said they'll open it more, which is great, but it's case-by-case only, and it's already long after they've established a firm foothold on native RF glass at a premium. That or they’re using clunky EF adapters (though some have cool features like variable ND) and relying on older lenses that are even heavier and aren’t optimized for modern higher performance, higher resolution mirrorless cameras. Oh, and then add the old EF teleconverters on top of an adapter and it’s even more frustrating. The second thing I can't shake is that it's baffling to me that Canon isn't supporting these two cool lenses with their own modern teleconverters. Doing so would add phenomenal value to both. I wonder if it's because they worry about cannibalizing their many other supertelephotos, and/or maybe that they impose too much of a performance limitation. Either way, it just seems punitive to me. Meanwhile, you can add the Sony ones to your kit, vastly increase your options, and *still* come in at a lower overall system weight and cost without sacrificing performance, even if it does mean you're carrying and swapping more individual pieces of kit. So really, I'm not too worried about Sony's offerings at the moment (though I wouldn’t be sad if they copied the 100-300 and 24-105). I'm mainly concerned that they keep putting pressure on themselves to not just innovate and maintain these values, but to also add value to the existing cameras they're keeping in their lineup. Which is why I'm pleased to hear that the a1 and a7S III are getting some updates (especially content authenticity support), even if they're not at the level of what Nikon is doing with the Z8 and Z9. But then again, the question of Nikon is yet another 1,300-word post (which nobody will read). ***Note: All currency in US dollars. Also, none of the weights include tripod feet, which add approximately 1 ounce (29g) to each zoom lens. This is inconsequential for the purposes of this post.
@@GilbertTang With all you said: I do think Canon's impact to the industry of sports and event shooting with the 100-300 2.8 is enormous. So will it be with the 24-105 2.8 Z. A 300 2.8 prime is very "nichy" these days being dominated by 100-400ish and 200-600ish. I expect Canon not to launch a 300 prime any time soon - they do have the knowledge of market needs. Teleconverters are not used by those pros. A lens producer is not well advised to compromise the advantage of a close flinch distance and a huge bayonet diameter by a TC needing space within the lens barrel. All effort goes into performance advantages and weight savings.
Maybe someone will do one but I shoot on location rather than doing bench tests. My Patrons over at Patreon.com/markgaler can download Raw files captured with both of these lenses to determine 'acce[table' sharpness. In my opinion, a lens is sharp enough if the ultra high-definition image you are looking at looks sharp enough. Seeing the sharpness of two lenses taking photos of an MTF chart is a bit academic in my line of work.
The lens limiter has an Infinity to 6M setting - if you select this you won't be able to focus any closer than 6M. If you want to focus closer you will have to select the 'FULL' setting. I offer full one-on-one support on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel.
I wasn't invited to the A9II Party in NY - sometimes they forget about us 'down under' in Australia ;-) With these major technological landmark cameras there are no pre-production units for reviewers prior to announcement. I will await to see if Sony Japan remember to send me one. I think the sweet spot is 33MP and not 24MP as the keynote speaker at the NY launch said. APS-C mode is too tight with a 24MP sensor if you are always looking to publish 4K images. I may wait for the A1 MKII as my personal sports camera.
@AlphaCreativeSkills yes that is my thought to re 33 mp and being able to have some level of decent apsc crop. This is why I am now undecided on it. Rest of camera is beast mode though . Thanks for the reply Mark
I can’t believe they didn’t bring you to New York. Yours is by far the most critical opinion for me: none of the RU-vidr bullshit, for one, and someone deeply experienced and eloquent who does real work and shows real photographs for two. Plus you’re a huge resource for so many people. I love Sony, but this was a misstep. Either way, as amazed as I am by the A9 III in several ways, I too am still holding out for the A1 II, especially now that you’ve got me seriously considering this 300 over waiting for a 400 II. Whether it’s to the detriment of my reputation with the cool photographers or not, I rely on and appreciate the resolution.
I created a one-hour preview video on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel. As there are no production cameras or firmware yet it is too early for reviews.
Never say never. I spent 30 of my 43-year career shooting with second-hand or entry level gear. I borrowed or hired the premium gear when needed. Maybe hiring one of these lenses for a 'special event' will give you the experience you are wanting :-)
I have done a 1-hour hands-on preview for the A9lll on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel. I will do a review when a production camera using production firmware becomes available next year.
I’m not sure this lens will be too useful or as one would wish. 200-500mm GM F5.6 constant aperture or less. For me most animal life stands too far out.
That sounds like a conspiracy theory. In my experience it’s not the Japanese way of doing business. Do you have any evidence for the statement you just made.
But when you adapt it to a Sony you lose the ability for fast AF that can keep up with an A1 - that would be a Pro Sports photographer's senior moment.