Preface: I can’t afford either of these lenses so I’m just an armchair speculator here 😅 I think you raise some good points here, but as I watched I kept wondering - how would the script of this video had changed if the Canon 100-300 didn’t exist? It seemed like a lot of the “negatives” of this lens were basically only because there is a 100-300 option on the market from Canon. It almost felt like this video was trying to pump up the canon lens rather than review the Sony lens. Not sure what the motivations behind this video was but that’s how it came off to me.
I use the Canon 300mm for a lot more than sports. I shoot a lot of events, theatre, concerts, speeches, etc. The versatility of the 100-300mm would be perfect for my work. Hope to add it to my bag sometime soon.
@jared polin how did you get your start at being able to get press passes for sporting events? did you have to be well known first? do you sign something giving all photos to the club? thanks for the great content!
I would've loved the Canon 100-300 2.8 last year in Botswana with my 600 F4 instead of the 100-500. The zoom would've been much more useful than the prime but I do like the Sony price more.
I have shot field sports.... 100-300 is a must - it eliminates the 70-200 + BODY... 300 alone is nothing compared to the usability of the 100-300. Oh the weight??? stfu - no one is carrying any prime lens for 2 hours... we all use a monopod. wight doesnt matter the ability to instantly zoom out is money.
Canon is just making sure that they want to keep rumors alive that we are coming up with third party lens but in reality thy are not serious thy want you bay their over price lenses.
Both lenses are good but not really comparable except for the 300 mm aspect. I would much rather have the small size and weight. a six pound lens isn't fun to carry in a bag or to hand hold, but of course the zoom makes it allot more versatile. I would rather have the just announced Tamron 140 to 340 f2.8 to 3.2 that is only a little over a pound. and half the price. ........................................................................... Joking about the Tamron.
This is such an objective review I'm actually really impressed with the arguments for and against tbis lens. I bought the 100-300 and it's insane. It replaced almost my entire setup, but i have some friends who shoot Sony and i was even impressed seeing this release. We got into talking about how Sony might have been late to the 300, but how that the size and weight was absurd. I even like the part where you mentioned about how zooms and primes theres no difference really in sharpness these days. I've seen a lot of people still say they would rather have the ef 300 2.8 because it's sharper because its a prime. I have to question if these people have ever shot with modern lenses. Almost all lenses from like the last 5 or even more years are equally sharp haha. I do wish the rf 100-300 had that snap on hood the sony has though. That i am envious of. I hate the screw on hood sometimes. I dont regret my 100-300 purchase though. Most expensive lens I've ever bought but it's such an insane piece of engineering and so is this Sony 300 2.8. I think shooters from both brands would be happy with either these days. Whichever brand you shoot its always exciting to see what the competition is doing 👍
Compared to old ef lenses even cheap rf lenses are sharper. There are slight differences but from all the ones I have only the 28-70 f2 is a bit soft. Its still plenty sharp but noticably softer than other lenses. My ef lenses are all softer though.
@@Xirpzy yeah. I've used lenses all over the place ranging from 10 year old lenses or even older. 6-10 years.. yeah probably not as good. Anything from the last 5 years though for the most part are great lenses. That's unfortunate you said your 28-70 f2 is soft. I had that lens earlier this year but I sold it as I didn't use it much. Although... when I look back at the times I used it the images are amazing. I do find myself missing it 😂 but I didn't find it being soft at least in the copy I had. I had an ef 400 2.8 is ii for a while and it was as sharp as any modern lens. Compared it to the version 3 and there was no optical difference or performance difference. Literally only weight and probably better CA, but that was it. All lenses are sharp really these days at least L lenses. Maybe 10 years back only in the big primes, but as time as gone on zooms have basically just become equally as sharp.
@Broskisnowskithe only difference that has improved over the years is CA and lens coatings to reduce flare. This was true back in the day, but has not been true for the most part for several years now. If anything you're getting better edge sharpness. I mean we're talking like 1% differences. People that have used modern lenses and older lenses, zooms and primes will tell you it's silly the people who won't buy a 100-300 because it's a zoom and "primes are sharper" 😂 The difference is essentially non-existent. Zooms suffer more from vignette and even that's fixed in post now. In the camera world there's a lot of people who argue lens sharpness and will say that X lens is the sharpest lens they've ever used. It's all self-validation to validate their purchases ultimately. The fact that people think the ef 300 2.8 is ii is sharper than the RF 100-300 2.8 is just silly. Not only is the 100-300 more modern, but it's just simply not true even if the 300 was up to date. If you paired the sony 300 2.8 with the A1 vs canon with the 100-300 2.8 with a R5 both at 300mm no pros or hobbyist or anybody will be able to tell a difference 😊
You just cannot help yourself complaining about Sony and asking if/when people will come over to Canon. I appreciate that you like RF glass, and I do too, but to complain that Sony doesn't have an 85/1.2... where is Canon's 24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 GM, 50/1.4 GM? The Sony 50/1.2 GM is superior to Canon's on all fronts, so it the Sony 70-200/2.8 GM II to the RF 70-200/2.8. Back to the review - no one will change systems over 1 single lens. It is great that Sony has a very light 300/2.8. It is equally great that Canon has the 100-300/2.8, but $3,500 is a meaningful difference in price to many people.
The Canon RF 70-200mm f2.8 is only 5.75" long retracted. While I normally dislike external zoom lenses, this compact size frees up so much space in my bags allowing me to store it vertically. The same goes for the RF 100-500mm at 8.17" vs. the Sony 200-600mm (which I previously owned) at 12.52". I can actually store the 100-500mm vertically in my F-stop Shinn 80l bag.
@@bladerealm124 I agree about the size, I owned and used the RF 70-200/2.8, but I found the push/pull system really tiresome. Using that lens for e.g. 2 basketball games in a row was exhausting - the Sony one is just so much smoother to use for fast action.
I switched from Canon to Sony in 2017 and love Sony, but in the same week that they killed it with the release of the A9III, they totally f@$ked up with the 300 prime. They were too long developing this lens, and now its outdated BY the Canon 100-300. I shoot music, and that 100-300 f/2.8 range is my bread&butter. Particularly indoors where low light requires a fast aperture. I'm kinda pissed off about this as I've been using the older Sigma 120-300mm with the MC11 for some time but it's heavy!! Looks like I'll be sticking with this setup
Oh no😮. How could you use the a1, with its rolling shutter, and all that flickering on the lcd ad boards. The horror! Global shutter is a must have for all sports shooters (says all the people who don’t shoot sports). 😱. 👈 and that’s pretty much what it’s like being in the Sony fb groups this week. 🤦🏻♂️🤣
Well for you and shooting sports the zoom may be the better choice, but for the vast majority of wildlife photographers, they are mostly shooting at 300+mm, so the prime is a better choice for the lighter weight, and the lower cost for those with the smaller budget. Personally, I would be able to carry the prime around a lot longer, and it would be a lot easier to quickly maneuver for shooting action.
The Sony is significantly smaller, lighter and cheaper, but that's not the point. F2.8 is not always the same as F2.8. A lens with a fixed focal length and fewer elements is always expected to have a lower T-stop than a zoom lens.
Hey Jared, great video as always. As a Sony shooter I’ve been looking forward for this 300mm f/2.8 for so long and I’m so excited it is here. This lens is perfect for me as I want a lightweight prime lens. Cost of this lens is much better than the 100-300 lens cost. I’m very excited to get my own 300mm. I can’t afford to buy a 400mm f/2.8 so the 300 prime is perfect for me
Of course you are a Canon guy now and will prefer whatever they have over Sony. That is what we expect. Both lenses are valid choices, but as a pro with over 50 years in the business and a user of all brands including Canon ,Nikon and Sony, I would not EVER change brands because of one particular lens, that is ludicrous. LOL I shoot all subjects around the world, and you buy into a whole system, not one lens. Enjoy your Canon gear. Cheers
This lens is absolutely MUST HAVE for me. I am waiting so long, I am happy I can order it. For versatility I have great Sony 200-600 or 70-200. I had in past Nikkor 400/2.8 with Nikon D3s, it was great combo, but only used for my animal photos, other photo shooting was not good as it was very long, very heavy. 300mm is much universal and with this weight? Amazing. For animals I am very often shooting from hand, weight is very important for me. So I am really looking to buy it when it will be possible. ... thanks for review btw ;)
Guess that's why many pros use Sony bodies with Canon lenses for sports. Using 1 camera with the 300 2.8 and 1 camera with a 70-200 2.8 would be another option I guess.
I stay with my *EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM* all the way😎 Yes, it is not 300 and not 100, but it is overall gorgeous and just take a look at it's price compared to these white ones...
Absolutely right! Portability comes out first especially when travelling so that I don’t want to use my phone to capture photos when I have a 5k set up just sitting in my bag and didn’t want to take out because of the weight.
The opening is to stop the hood cover slipping when you take it off, you grip the lens hood with your thumb through the cut out, then release the velcro and remove the cover.
At first not so interested with the 300GM. But after knowing the price and weight especially. I know i have to get 1. Got the pre order in. With 1.4 the reach should be ok.. then 61MP can do plenty/enough of crop. The main point… its just 1.4 KG come on! And snall af compare to 400prime and beyond.
I have ordered the new Sony 300 F2.8. I prefer primes over zooms for their greater sharpness, being lighter and they make you more creative. Your only complaint with this lens was basically it is not a zoom, so you could not go wider frame when the action came close. If you were really there to photograph the game you would have another camera with wider lens to pick up and use in that situation
He said the lens is sharp, superb quality, and he said, If you bring this to sport as a pro, you would have another body with a 100-200mm lens on. He is telling us exactly that, the pros and cons of the lens.
and this is why the entire argument he was making throughout the video (which I presume you ignored those parts I guess) was that Sony was late to the game with this lens. 300mm was always in an awkward spot because of the exact scenario you mentioned where people just used two camera bodies. Traditonally people use a 400 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8. 300 was pointless because the 70-200 was only slightly shorter than it, while the 400 was twice the length not to mention has better bokeh and compression. Now we're in a new age with manufacturers building new lenses due to advancements in technology. Canon could have built a lens like this as well, but they realized there was no point so they made the 100-300 instead essentially being a 70-200 on steroids and replacing the need of a 300mm prime and allowing you to shoot on one camera, one lens instead of two and two. They're lighter sure, but the other two points are moot. The argument that primes are sharper than zooms has been an age old argument that hasn't been true for essentially the last 5 years or so. I've shot on multiple systems with professional glass. Modern 400 2.8's and ones from 10 years ago. There is no optical difference. The only advancements in lenses has been they've gotten lighter, they have less CA and they can focus faster and get higher keeper rates has camera fps has gotten higher. Optically lenses haven't gotten sharper in close to 10 years now. If primes really are still sharper I mean we're talking less than 1% differences.
@@kpopfanphotos exactly 400 F2.8 is the standard sport shooting lens at football, soccer and sporting events along with the 70-200 f2.8 I would never carry a 300 prime lens over a 100-300mm lens
300mm plus the 50mp of the a1 is a great combo. Even on APS-C mode it has around the same resolution from the Sony a9. Small advise, usually the player warm up on the opposite side from side line referee. A sports photographer using such a combo has always a second camera. Will get mine next week. More flexibility if shooting 300mm+ because Sony has the a1. Canon has no high megapixel ultra fast body. I can easily crop with the a1 I cant do that with the R3. That plus the much higher price and weight...I would always choose the Sony.
When I shot Nikon and before that Pentax (yes, I’m old) a compact 300mm +TC was my bread and butter for wildlife and nature to which I had to hike long distances. Rarely wanted wider, often used the converters. Sony had no 300mm prime at all, so it was the 100-400. This looks fantastic with a 2.8 aperture. Now I just need the bucks.
@@RealThore that would be cheaper... I have thus far avoided the F mount adapter. It's a good idea you propose. Or maybe I'll wait another 6 months, surely Nikon has something for me coming.
I'm not a Sony shooter so no dog in this hunt. It does look like it will be a fantastic lens for those who have a need for a 300 f2.8. It's a good time to be a photographer.
Keep in mind your hands may agree more with an A9 III than myself or Fro or anyone else. Everyone has different bodies so you may find one is better than the other. An R3 feels terrible in my hands. I'm a small guy. An A7R V with the grip feels like it's literally made for me.
@@michaelmiller7928I agree. I moved from an R6 and R5 to the A7iv and A7Rv and I have stubbier fingers and find the Sony’s more comfortable. Also I can now reach the joystick with my thumb where I had to move my grip on the body to stretch my thumb over on the canon. It’s all about what fits in your hand.
@@michaelmiller7928 I like the feel of the Sony bodies now. I shot Nikon and it's definitely better worse than that, but you get used to it and I like it now.
In case someone hasn't mentioned it the team was the New England Revolution. In regards to the lenses, I would prefer the 100-300 for versatility....if I had $10,000 laying around to purchase something like that 😂
Yes! Besides sports, I would love to have this lens for Fine Arts photography. There are times where I need to shoot a subject from far away for example my model that sits in a boat. Being able to shoot close to her while getting a beautiful bokeh is what I need from the 300mm F/2.8 lens. Very pricey but hopefully one day i can add this lens to my arsenal.
@@CStonePhoto photographers are so weird. I don't know why you guys can't just be objective lol. They're both good lenses. All lenses are sharp these days. Primes used to be noticeably sharper than zooms, and while it still may hold true, lens optics have gotten so good that we're talking extreme marginal differences now. My friend uses an A1 and A7R5 with the 300 2.8. I have the 100-300 2.8 and used it with my R5. We couldn't tell a difference between photos. If you are arguing camera bodies yeah sure Sony is betterin that regard for sure. If the Sony is sharper solely because it's a prime I mean we're talking less than 1% differences in IQ. Even with my 100-300 I definitely envy my friend shooting with the A1 and 300 2.8. It's an insane combination. I also have another friend who shoots concerts and sports professionally and he rented the 100-300 as a Sony shooter (2 A1's and a A7R5) and said it was the best lens he's ever used and said he was seriously considering swapping brands just because of the 100-300. They're both insane lenses in their own right.
Given the sharpness of today’s zooms, and reasonably fast shooting cameras having 50 or 60 megapixels, for anyone other than a working professional, I think that a 70 - 200 f/2.8 zoom shot in APSC mode would be the sensible way to go.
It would be a 300mm F/4.2 equivalent, in terms of DOF and image noise, so not a good option. If you have money for a modern 70-200 2.8, and need a 300 2.8, just buy the Sigma 120-300 2.8, which is very good and can be found for under 1500€ used.
Canon’s 10-20mm f/4, 24-105mm f/2.8 and 100-300mm f/2.8 feels like the new and improved HEBREW TRINITY for almost all types of photography. Yes we’re losing 4mm between 20mm and 24mm and we have a 5mm overlap from 100mm to 105mm but this is the best trinity costing a mere $15,000.00/-
300mm/70-200mm combo sounds more than reasonable and would certainly be helpful for both field and indoor court sports, not to mention tennis. Most sports photogs have two (sometimes 3) bodies with them. This combo would be killer as Sony's 70-200gm ii is stupid light/sharp as a tack, and the af is crazy accurate. If I was shooting American football, I'd probably lean towards the 400 prime and the 70-200, but for many scenarios the 300 prime is just right. And because it's so light, you can use both without a tripod ;-)
Honestly the longer I shoot the more I lean towards primes lenses. Yeah zoom Is far more convenient but what I love about primes is that I'm forced to be more thoughtful with my shots. Since my body is the zoom I become more critical of the composition of my shots.
I agree for general photography, but for wildlife (and also sports), where you can't move at the right place to get the shot, the versatility of a zoom is a must-have.
@@wilduntamedphotography1260 It is true that in wildlife photography, 95% of shots with a zoom are at the long end and then cropped a bit, so i can see why you would prefer primes (beside the obvious gain in quality, and aperture). Personnaly, if i had the money to buy a prime (something like a used 600 F4 or 400 2.8), i would, but i would keep a zoom for those subjects that get really close. And use each according to the subject.
Jared Polin on the 300mm F2.8 GM @ 1470g: "The first thing you notice is how light it is" Also Jared Polin on the 70-200mm F2.8 GM1 @ 1480g: "Oh my god is this thing a brick, this thing is super heavy!"
The A1 by itself is such a better camera than anything Canon offers and it’s almost three years old and then Sony puts the A9III and the global shutter on the map. I’m fine with the GMaster glass.
Didn't think I would ever say that something could be more annoying than gaming fanboys but camera fanboys are even worse. Buy what you want and enjoy what you want.
@@jsan7610cannon has been following sony for ages sony innovates cannon follows what u on about. Cannon rf doesnt have nearly as much high quality glass as sony lmfao not to mention third party options way lighter and smaller with as good if not better optical quality. You guys are lacking basic pro rf prime glass
Jared, you've gotta relax, and learn to crop!! Tightening up those shots of yours in the final slideshow would make SO much difference! You shot with the 50mp A1 - surely you can see the benefit of cropping!!
Not really a Canon person was never my system, that said 15/10 I would much rather have the range of a 100-300. Currently as a Sony shooter my hope is that they develop a 100-300. Who knows maybe shooting on the 70-200 F2.8 on the A1 and cropping would be enough? I have not been lucky enough to get to use a A1 yet.
Hi, super noob here. I was shooting a HS fb game and the players uniforms where white and black. The black uniforms were fine, colors were nice, but the player in white uniforms were washed out. How do I fix this?
Anyone else feel Canon and Sony are secretly the same company? Sony's 300 looks almost identical to the canon version II tele primes that came out in around 2012.
Thank you for the video. I shoot Canon R5 and Sony A1. Believe it or not I still own the original EF 300mm f/2.8L IS but due to its weight I also bought the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. Have in the past also used both adapted to my Sony A1. I think Sony’s light weight is great and wonder about using it with a 1.4x TC at f/4 to gain reach to 420mm or pairing with my 70-200/2.8 GM II. The Canon RF 100-300/2.8 is flexible at 2590 grams actually weighs more than the two Sony lens and when I shoot sports I have 2x A1 with me anyway. Sure with Canon I don’t have to pick up another camera but still have to have two with me. Have you ever gone out to a game with 2x R3 like a the working sports shooting pro or an R3 + R5 so you have a body for the 70-200/2.8 or 24-70/2.8 or 28-70/2?.. or would you now pair it with the new RF 24-105/2.8L IS. Lots of options for sure. Interested in your thoughts and also those of other sports photographers that make their living doing this multiple days a week. Thank you again.
Well, I had this dilemma what you're talking about around the 11:30 mark, I had a Canon 300mm 2.8, but I felt limited so I bought a Sigma 120-300mm sports to replace my prime.
I appreciate what you say but it's a great lens for lots of other uses and would make it a great buy if you aren't predominately doing sports also second body with 70-200 . thanks for your thoughts
This lens on A7R-V might be best combo ever existed for today. In fullframe mode 300 mm f2.8 --> right into 26 mpx APS-C mode 450 mm f2.8 (with a little more dof)
Video Request: Can you explain how LR's new feature of allowing local access to image files stores information about the changes made to images without using a catalog? Are sidecar files used for this?
I wish canon would have a 300mm 2.8 prime at this price point and weight. I love the EF version, but definitely the 100-300 is a beast of a lens and I rent this on occasions. And that’s always fun, but I use it more on the longer side therefore a prime fits better to me. 😊
I've been waiting for Sony to make the 300 2.8 for a long time. I have been adapting a Canon 300 2.8 on my A9 and I am looking forward to having the Sony 300 2.8 native lens. I have a 70-200 on another body to when I shoot with the 300 2.8 so I'm good with the 300 prime. Thanks Jared for the video. Will you shoot pick up the new A9III with the global shutter? It is quite the technological advancement! Great work Sony.
Preface: I can’t afford either of these lenses so I’m just an armchair speculator here 😅
I think you raise some good points here, but as I watched I kept wondering - how would the script of this video had changed if the Canon 100-300 didn’t exist? It seemed like a lot of the “negatives” of this lens were basically only because there is a 100-300 option on the market from Canon. It almost felt like this video was trying to pump up the canon lens rather than review the Sony lens. Not sure what the motivations behind this video was but that’s how it came off to me.
Idk why I watch these 😅 I’m broke as a joke but always enjoy the content
Thanks to fro and Stephen for crushing as always
Same 😂😂
Dan too!
@@stepheneckert4006 only because he has never listened to the podcast. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I use the Canon 300mm for a lot more than sports. I shoot a lot of events, theatre, concerts, speeches, etc. The versatility of the 100-300mm would be perfect for my work. Hope to add it to my bag sometime soon.
Same, I use the canon 300mm 2.8 II a ton as a live video cam on an R5. Looks absolutely spectacular. 100-300 would make it indispensable
Let me guess you use it for vlogging 🤣
@jared polin how did you get your start at being able to get press passes for sporting events? did you have to be well known first? do you sign something giving all photos to the club? thanks for the great content!
That security dude was so rude
Securities are annoying everywhere
As a wildlife shooter I’d much sooner have the lighter 300mm prime. Perfect companion lens to a 600mm.
Exactely, had the 400 F2.8 but sold it a few days ago because 400mm is too close to the 600 F4 I still have, so I pre-ordered the 300 F2.8 GM 🎉
That 300/2.8GM is unreal. Use APS-C crop on the A1 and you’ve got the reach. Love the 100-300 concept though.
I would've loved the Canon 100-300 2.8 last year in Botswana with my 600 F4 instead of the 100-500. The zoom would've been much more useful than the prime but I do like the Sony price more.
I'd be very happy if Sony made a 4,0/100-300mm - I mean with a constant f/4
Why constant f4 if canon can make it to f2.8 hahaha
@@mbismbismb Simple: then you'd have to pay 4 times the price hahaha
mehhh f4 is noobs@@PH61a
Man. That is crazy small and light. I would prefer to see a 200mm f2, but dang, that is drool worthy.
I have shot field sports.... 100-300 is a must - it eliminates the 70-200 + BODY... 300 alone is nothing compared to the usability of the 100-300. Oh the weight??? stfu - no one is carrying any prime lens for 2 hours... we all use a monopod. wight doesnt matter the ability to instantly zoom out is money.
Canon is just making sure that they want to keep rumors alive that we are coming up with third party lens but in reality thy are not serious thy want you bay their over price lenses.
Masterpiece of a lens. I hope in a 500/4 with this specs
Both lenses are good but not really comparable except for the 300 mm aspect. I would much rather have the small size and weight. a six pound lens isn't fun to carry in a bag or to hand hold, but of course the zoom makes it allot more versatile. I would rather have the just announced Tamron 140 to 340 f2.8 to 3.2 that is only a little over a pound. and half the price. ........................................................................... Joking about the Tamron.
This is such an objective review I'm actually really impressed with the arguments for and against tbis lens.
I bought the 100-300 and it's insane. It replaced almost my entire setup, but i have some friends who shoot Sony and i was even impressed seeing this release. We got into talking about how Sony might have been late to the 300, but how that the size and weight was absurd.
I even like the part where you mentioned about how zooms and primes theres no difference really in sharpness these days. I've seen a lot of people still say they would rather have the ef 300 2.8 because it's sharper because its a prime. I have to question if these people have ever shot with modern lenses. Almost all lenses from like the last 5 or even more years are equally sharp haha.
I do wish the rf 100-300 had that snap on hood the sony has though. That i am envious of. I hate the screw on hood sometimes. I dont regret my 100-300 purchase though. Most expensive lens I've ever bought but it's such an insane piece of engineering and so is this Sony 300 2.8. I think shooters from both brands would be happy with either these days.
Whichever brand you shoot its always exciting to see what the competition is doing 👍
Compared to old ef lenses even cheap rf lenses are sharper. There are slight differences but from all the ones I have only the 28-70 f2 is a bit soft. Its still plenty sharp but noticably softer than other lenses. My ef lenses are all softer though.
@@Xirpzy yeah. I've used lenses all over the place ranging from 10 year old lenses or even older. 6-10 years.. yeah probably not as good. Anything from the last 5 years though for the most part are great lenses.
That's unfortunate you said your 28-70 f2 is soft. I had that lens earlier this year but I sold it as I didn't use it much. Although... when I look back at the times I used it the images are amazing. I do find myself missing it 😂 but I didn't find it being soft at least in the copy I had.
I had an ef 400 2.8 is ii for a while and it was as sharp as any modern lens. Compared it to the version 3 and there was no optical difference or performance difference. Literally only weight and probably better CA, but that was it. All lenses are sharp really these days at least L lenses. Maybe 10 years back only in the big primes, but as time as gone on zooms have basically just become equally as sharp.
@Broskisnowskithe only difference that has improved over the years is CA and lens coatings to reduce flare. This was true back in the day, but has not been true for the most part for several years now.
If anything you're getting better edge sharpness. I mean we're talking like 1% differences. People that have used modern lenses and older lenses, zooms and primes will tell you it's silly the people who won't buy a 100-300 because it's a zoom and "primes are sharper" 😂
The difference is essentially non-existent. Zooms suffer more from vignette and even that's fixed in post now.
In the camera world there's a lot of people who argue lens sharpness and will say that X lens is the sharpest lens they've ever used. It's all self-validation to validate their purchases ultimately. The fact that people think the ef 300 2.8 is ii is sharper than the RF 100-300 2.8 is just silly. Not only is the 100-300 more modern, but it's just simply not true even if the 300 was up to date. If you paired the sony 300 2.8 with the A1 vs canon with the 100-300 2.8 with a R5 both at 300mm no pros or hobbyist or anybody will be able to tell a difference 😊
All lenses are sharp 😂😂😂😂
300mm is short for football.
You just cannot help yourself complaining about Sony and asking if/when people will come over to Canon. I appreciate that you like RF glass, and I do too, but to complain that Sony doesn't have an 85/1.2... where is Canon's 24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 GM, 50/1.4 GM? The Sony 50/1.2 GM is superior to Canon's on all fronts, so it the Sony 70-200/2.8 GM II to the RF 70-200/2.8.
Back to the review - no one will change systems over 1 single lens. It is great that Sony has a very light 300/2.8. It is equally great that Canon has the 100-300/2.8, but $3,500 is a meaningful difference in price to many people.
The Canon RF 70-200mm f2.8 is only 5.75" long retracted. While I normally dislike external zoom lenses, this compact size frees up so much space in my bags allowing me to store it vertically. The same goes for the RF 100-500mm at 8.17" vs. the Sony 200-600mm (which I previously owned) at 12.52". I can actually store the 100-500mm vertically in my F-stop Shinn 80l bag.
@@bladerealm124 I agree about the size, I owned and used the RF 70-200/2.8, but I found the push/pull system really tiresome. Using that lens for e.g. 2 basketball games in a row was exhausting - the Sony one is just so much smoother to use for fast action.
I switched from Canon to Sony in 2017 and love Sony, but in the same week that they killed it with the release of the A9III, they totally f@$ked up with the 300 prime. They were too long developing this lens, and now its outdated BY the Canon 100-300. I shoot music, and that 100-300 f/2.8 range is my bread&butter. Particularly indoors where low light requires a fast aperture. I'm kinda pissed off about this as I've been using the older Sigma 120-300mm with the MC11 for some time but it's heavy!! Looks like I'll be sticking with this setup
Oh no😮. How could you use the a1, with its rolling shutter, and all that flickering on the lcd ad boards. The horror! Global shutter is a must have for all sports shooters (says all the people who don’t shoot sports). 😱. 👈 and that’s pretty much what it’s like being in the Sony fb groups this week. 🤦🏻♂️🤣
"I know where I wanna be [...]"
Money trucks incoming!
I don't like zooms. I'd take the lighter lens.
Well for you and shooting sports the zoom may be the better choice, but for the vast majority of wildlife photographers, they are mostly shooting at 300+mm, so the prime is a better choice for the lighter weight, and the lower cost for those with the smaller budget. Personally, I would be able to carry the prime around a lot longer, and it would be a lot easier to quickly maneuver for shooting action.
Do you ever want to just shave all that hair off somedays?
The Sony is significantly smaller, lighter and cheaper, but that's not the point. F2.8 is not always the same as F2.8. A lens with a fixed focal length and fewer elements is always expected to have a lower T-stop than a zoom lens.
Hey Jared, great video as always. As a Sony shooter I’ve been looking forward for this 300mm f/2.8 for so long and I’m so excited it is here. This lens is perfect for me as I want a lightweight prime lens. Cost of this lens is much better than the 100-300 lens cost. I’m very excited to get my own 300mm. I can’t afford to buy a 400mm f/2.8 so the 300 prime is perfect for me
Sony 300mm is 2lbs lighter than Canon 300mm f2.8 II and the price is cheaper than Canon 300mm released 12 yrs ago, AZMAZING!
Of course you are a Canon guy now and will prefer whatever they have over Sony. That is what we expect. Both lenses are valid choices, but as a pro with over 50 years in the business and a user of all brands including Canon ,Nikon and Sony, I would not EVER change brands because of one particular lens, that is ludicrous. LOL I shoot all subjects around the world, and you buy into a whole system, not one lens. Enjoy your Canon gear. Cheers
Ok 6gwilliams
Damn!!! That Canon money truck be backing with loads and loads of money!!!
This lens is absolutely MUST HAVE for me. I am waiting so long, I am happy I can order it. For versatility I have great Sony 200-600 or 70-200. I had in past Nikkor 400/2.8 with Nikon D3s, it was great combo, but only used for my animal photos, other photo shooting was not good as it was very long, very heavy. 300mm is much universal and with this weight? Amazing. For animals I am very often shooting from hand, weight is very important for me. So I am really looking to buy it when it will be possible. ... thanks for review btw ;)
Thanks Jared your reviews are the closest I’m gonna ever get to touching one of those lenses!!😂😂
Guess that's why many pros use Sony bodies with Canon lenses for sports. Using 1 camera with the 300 2.8 and 1 camera with a 70-200 2.8 would be another option I guess.
I stay with my *EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM* all the way😎 Yes, it is not 300 and not 100, but it is overall gorgeous and just take a look at it's price compared to these white ones...
EF200L and EF135L is a modern classic. I doubt any modern lens can replace them
Now days portability is the biggest factor for many. Not just this lens is the whole system.
Absolutely right! Portability comes out first especially when travelling so that I don’t want to use my phone to capture photos when I have a 5k set up just sitting in my bag and didn’t want to take out because of the weight.
I think an a6700, a 35-150 2-2-8 and the 300 2.8 are still cheaper than the 100 - 300 f2.8. $6000 vs $9400, it's a hard sale Jared
sony fan crying so hard right now😂
The opening is to stop the hood cover slipping when you take it off, you grip the lens hood with your thumb through the cut out, then release the velcro and remove the cover.
At first not so interested with the 300GM. But after knowing the price and weight especially. I know i have to get 1. Got the pre order in. With 1.4 the reach should be ok.. then 61MP can do plenty/enough of crop. The main point… its just 1.4 KG come on! And snall af compare to 400prime and beyond.
I have ordered the new Sony 300 F2.8. I prefer primes over zooms for their greater sharpness, being lighter and they make you more creative. Your only complaint with this lens was basically it is not a zoom, so you could not go wider frame when the action came close. If you were really there to photograph the game you would have another camera with wider lens to pick up and use in that situation
He said the lens is sharp, superb quality, and he said, If you bring this to sport as a pro, you would have another body with a 100-200mm lens on.
He is telling us exactly that, the pros and cons of the lens.
and this is why the entire argument he was making throughout the video (which I presume you ignored those parts I guess) was that Sony was late to the game with this lens. 300mm was always in an awkward spot because of the exact scenario you mentioned where people just used two camera bodies. Traditonally people use a 400 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8. 300 was pointless because the 70-200 was only slightly shorter than it, while the 400 was twice the length not to mention has better bokeh and compression.
Now we're in a new age with manufacturers building new lenses due to advancements in technology. Canon could have built a lens like this as well, but they realized there was no point so they made the 100-300 instead essentially being a 70-200 on steroids and replacing the need of a 300mm prime and allowing you to shoot on one camera, one lens instead of two and two.
They're lighter sure, but the other two points are moot. The argument that primes are sharper than zooms has been an age old argument that hasn't been true for essentially the last 5 years or so. I've shot on multiple systems with professional glass. Modern 400 2.8's and ones from 10 years ago. There is no optical difference. The only advancements in lenses has been they've gotten lighter, they have less CA and they can focus faster and get higher keeper rates has camera fps has gotten higher. Optically lenses haven't gotten sharper in close to 10 years now.
If primes really are still sharper I mean we're talking less than 1% differences.
@@kpopfanphotos exactly 400 F2.8 is the standard sport shooting lens at football, soccer and sporting events along with the 70-200 f2.8 I would never carry a 300 prime lens over a 100-300mm lens
300mm plus the 50mp of the a1 is a great combo. Even on APS-C mode it has around the same resolution from the Sony a9. Small advise, usually the player warm up on the opposite side from side line referee. A sports photographer using such a combo has always a second camera. Will get mine next week. More flexibility if shooting 300mm+ because Sony has the a1. Canon has no high megapixel ultra fast body. I can easily crop with the a1 I cant do that with the R3. That plus the much higher price and weight...I would always choose the Sony.
When I shot Nikon and before that Pentax (yes, I’m old) a compact 300mm +TC was my bread and butter for wildlife and nature to which I had to hike long distances. Rarely wanted wider, often used the converters. Sony had no 300mm prime at all, so it was the 100-400. This looks fantastic with a 2.8 aperture. Now I just need the bucks.
I'm going with the Canon 100-300 F2.8 now, I know this is more useful in most situations.
I can crop shots with my 70-200 2.8 GM.
As a Nikon shooter i am seriously considering a 3rd body as a Canon for the 100-300mm and the 10-20mm.
What about adapting the older 120-300 Nikon F?
@@RealThore that would be cheaper... I have thus far avoided the F mount adapter. It's a good idea you propose. Or maybe I'll wait another 6 months, surely Nikon has something for me coming.
@@photobunny ohh yes please. Heck I'll start believing in God if that happens.
@@Michael-Masi-2021 The FTZ works great with the high-end F-mount lenses.
Throw in the 24-105 f2.8 if money is no issue
The Canon has a lense cap, that explains the price difference
I’m more impressed with the new shop front set 😉
0:58 REVOLUTION!
I'm not a Sony shooter so no dog in this hunt. It does look like it will be a fantastic lens for those who have a need for a 300 f2.8. It's a good time to be a photographer.
How did the A9 III feel in your hands? I really wanted to ask that last week.
better then most sony's, but not as good as an R3.
Keep in mind your hands may agree more with an A9 III than myself or Fro or anyone else. Everyone has different bodies so you may find one is better than the other. An R3 feels terrible in my hands. I'm a small guy. An A7R V with the grip feels like it's literally made for me.
@@michaelmiller7928I agree. I moved from an R6 and R5 to the A7iv and A7Rv and I have stubbier fingers and find the Sony’s more comfortable. Also I can now reach the joystick with my thumb where I had to move my grip on the body to stretch my thumb over on the canon. It’s all about what fits in your hand.
@@michaelmiller7928 I like the feel of the Sony bodies now. I shot Nikon and it's definitely better worse than that, but you get used to it and I like it now.
In case someone hasn't mentioned it the team was the New England Revolution.
In regards to the lenses, I would prefer the 100-300 for versatility....if I had $10,000 laying around to purchase something like that 😂
You can get the sigma 120-300 2.8 for 1500€ used (although it probably isn't as sharp)
Canon’s 100-300 RF and Nikon’s 120-300 is more versatile.
Yes! Besides sports, I would love to have this lens for Fine Arts photography. There are times where I need to shoot a subject from far away for example my model that sits in a boat. Being able to shoot close to her while getting a beautiful bokeh is what I need from the 300mm F/2.8 lens. Very pricey but hopefully one day i can add this lens to my arsenal.
NO thanks to zoom Lenses !!! The Sony 300mm 2.8 weighs 1180g less than Canon ! Sony $6000, Canon $9500 !!!
I waiting to see what Sony does with the 100-400GM.
I want that portable chair.
I would take a canon 100-300 F2.8 along with a 400mm F2.8
Which one was sharper
Yea a whole comparison and never compared image quality. No doubt the Sony is sharper, but it didn't fit his biased narrative.
@@CStonePhoto photographers are so weird. I don't know why you guys can't just be objective lol. They're both good lenses. All lenses are sharp these days. Primes used to be noticeably sharper than zooms, and while it still may hold true, lens optics have gotten so good that we're talking extreme marginal differences now.
My friend uses an A1 and A7R5 with the 300 2.8. I have the 100-300 2.8 and used it with my R5. We couldn't tell a difference between photos. If you are arguing camera bodies yeah sure Sony is betterin that regard for sure. If the Sony is sharper solely because it's a prime I mean we're talking less than 1% differences in IQ.
Even with my 100-300 I definitely envy my friend shooting with the A1 and 300 2.8. It's an insane combination. I also have another friend who shoots concerts and sports professionally and he rented the 100-300 as a Sony shooter (2 A1's and a A7R5) and said it was the best lens he's ever used and said he was seriously considering swapping brands just because of the 100-300. They're both insane lenses in their own right.
Yep we all know the versatillity of a zoom, and we all know the advantages of a prime (image quality), thanks 😂
Given the sharpness of today’s zooms, and reasonably fast shooting cameras having 50 or 60 megapixels, for anyone other than a working professional, I think that a 70 - 200 f/2.8 zoom shot in APSC mode would be the sensible way to go.
It would be a 300mm F/4.2 equivalent, in terms of DOF and image noise, so not a good option. If you have money for a modern 70-200 2.8, and need a 300 2.8, just buy the Sigma 120-300 2.8, which is very good and can be found for under 1500€ used.
Prime 100% Sony FE300 F2.8GM Amazing
canon rf 100-300mm f2.8 my dream lens 😍😍😍😍😍
Canon’s 10-20mm f/4, 24-105mm f/2.8 and 100-300mm f/2.8 feels like the new and improved HEBREW TRINITY for almost all types of photography.
Yes we’re losing 4mm between 20mm and 24mm and we have a 5mm overlap from 100mm to 105mm but this is the best trinity costing a mere $15,000.00/-
Only 15k 🙄
@@kais295yes only.
5.7 lbs is too much for a do it all lens for me.
they do indeed still make sit and spins. my 2yo loves it
300mm/70-200mm combo sounds more than reasonable and would certainly be helpful for both field and indoor court sports, not to mention tennis. Most sports photogs have two (sometimes 3) bodies with them. This combo would be killer as Sony's 70-200gm ii is stupid light/sharp as a tack, and the af is crazy accurate. If I was shooting American football, I'd probably lean towards the 400 prime and the 70-200, but for many scenarios the 300 prime is just right. And because it's so light, you can use both without a tripod ;-)
Yeah you could get some pretty sweet shots at a tennis match with this one! And for sure it's another pair up option with the 70-200 gm ii.
Why do all of your shots look like HDR. Is it coming back into fashion or do you just like that look.
60-600 and ISO25600 that's where it's at :D
Sigma has an old 120-300 2.8 for 2300 on eBay that has my eye over any 70-200
I would be telling security to f**k off and leave me to do my job,... !
Honestly the longer I shoot the more I lean towards primes lenses. Yeah zoom Is far more convenient but what I love about primes is that I'm forced to be more thoughtful with my shots. Since my body is the zoom I become more critical of the composition of my shots.
Same for me, I can handle limitations better than having too many options ... Cheers
I agree for general photography, but for wildlife (and also sports), where you can't move at the right place to get the shot, the versatility of a zoom is a must-have.
@@pierrevilley6675 not for me and I do mostly wildlife and a tiny bit of sports
@@wilduntamedphotography1260 It is true that in wildlife photography, 95% of shots with a zoom are at the long end and then cropped a bit, so i can see why you would prefer primes (beside the obvious gain in quality, and aperture).
Personnaly, if i had the money to buy a prime (something like a used 600 F4 or 400 2.8), i would, but i would keep a zoom for those subjects that get really close. And use each according to the subject.
Prime all day.
Jared Polin on the 300mm F2.8 GM @ 1470g: "The first thing you notice is how light it is"
Also Jared Polin on the 70-200mm F2.8 GM1 @ 1480g: "Oh my god is this thing a brick, this thing is super heavy!"
A9 III + 1.5kg 300mm F2.8 GM are here, but Please Please Please, do NOT switch from Canon to Sony, even though Canon has no any REAL flagship camera.
Canon all day.
Been debating between the Sony and the Canon. I love the Canon R6 Mark II so I think I might just go with that.
Sonny is even starting to copy Canon with their Red Ring 🤦🏽♂️
The A1 by itself is such a better camera than anything Canon offers and it’s almost three years old and then Sony puts the A9III and the global shutter on the map. I’m fine with the GMaster glass.
Didn't think I would ever say that something could be more annoying than gaming fanboys but camera fanboys are even worse. Buy what you want and enjoy what you want.
@@jsan7610cannon has been following sony for ages sony innovates cannon follows what u on about. Cannon rf doesnt have nearly as much high quality glass as sony lmfao not to mention third party options way lighter and smaller with as good if not better optical quality. You guys are lacking basic pro rf prime glass
GAZDAG!!! HUNGARY!!!!! Hajrá Magyarország! :)
Jared, you've gotta relax, and learn to crop!! Tightening up those shots of yours in the final slideshow would make SO much difference! You shot with the 50mp A1 - surely you can see the benefit of cropping!!
Not really a Canon person was never my system, that said 15/10 I would much rather have the range of a 100-300. Currently as a Sony shooter my hope is that they develop a 100-300. Who knows maybe shooting on the 70-200 F2.8 on the A1 and cropping would be enough? I have not been lucky enough to get to use a A1 yet.
“Jared” this Len is so light at 3.2 pounds!
Meanwhile the Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM “mark 1” which is the same weight 😑😑😑
I can't believe you havent seen Cars 😔
Hi, super noob here. I was shooting a HS fb game and the players uniforms where white and black. The black uniforms were fine, colors were nice, but the player in white uniforms were washed out. How do I fix this?
Anyone else feel Canon and Sony are secretly the same company? Sony's 300 looks almost identical to the canon version II tele primes that came out in around 2012.
I was thinking the Philadelphia Union is playing the New England... Union?
Thank you for the video. I shoot Canon R5 and Sony A1. Believe it or not I still own the original EF 300mm f/2.8L IS but due to its weight I also bought the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. Have in the past also used both adapted to my Sony A1. I think Sony’s light weight is great and wonder about using it with a 1.4x TC at f/4 to gain reach to 420mm or pairing with my 70-200/2.8 GM II. The Canon RF 100-300/2.8 is flexible at 2590 grams actually weighs more than the two Sony lens and when I shoot sports I have 2x A1 with me anyway. Sure with Canon I don’t have to pick up another camera but still have to have two with me. Have you ever gone out to a game with 2x R3 like a the working sports shooting pro or an R3 + R5 so you have a body for the 70-200/2.8 or 24-70/2.8 or 28-70/2?.. or would you now pair it with the new RF 24-105/2.8L IS. Lots of options for sure. Interested in your thoughts and also those of other sports photographers that make their living doing this multiple days a week. Thank you again.
You can peep you neighbors 😂😂❤
Well, I had this dilemma what you're talking about around the 11:30 mark, I had a Canon 300mm 2.8, but I felt limited so I bought a Sigma 120-300mm sports to replace my prime.
❤ clearly Canon is the winner. So happy to be at the canon team 🎉
This Sony lens or lose some stops of light and go with the Sony 100-400 f4.5/5.6?
Why is this even a comparison?
100-300 2.8
Sony any given day!
I would go with the 100-300 Canon because of the versatility and I shoot Canon
Yeah it’s sharp but a300mm…but seems limiting for me…others if it’s what your looking for then go for it.
I appreciate what you say but it's a great lens for lots of other uses and would make it a great buy if you aren't predominately doing sports also second body with 70-200 . thanks for your thoughts
We need image comparison for sharpness for both lens
Zoom vs prime, most will guess prime should be sharper
This lens on A7R-V might be best combo ever existed for today. In fullframe mode 300 mm f2.8 --> right into 26 mpx APS-C mode 450 mm f2.8 (with a little more dof)
Dude what are u talking about it won’t be 2.8 anymore which partially defeats the point of the high price
@@eagertosucceed6004 what are you talking about newbie? it's still f2.8 light with a crop.. stop arguing with people if you just started photography..
You don't get more dof with crop mode. All crop mode does is crop in on the already existing image.
Video Request: Can you explain how LR's new feature of allowing local access to image files stores information about the changes made to images without using a catalog? Are sidecar files used for this?
I think sony design the lens in canon language... judging from the badge of the focal length on the lens and the colours of the case etc
I wish canon would have a 300mm 2.8 prime at this price point and weight. I love the EF version, but definitely the 100-300 is a beast of a lens and I rent this on occasions. And that’s always fun, but I use it more on the longer side therefore a prime fits better to me. 😊
I've been waiting for Sony to make the 300 2.8 for a long time. I have been adapting a Canon 300 2.8 on my A9 and I am looking forward to having the Sony 300 2.8 native lens. I have a 70-200 on another body to when I shoot with the 300 2.8 so I'm good with the 300 prime. Thanks Jared for the video. Will you shoot pick up the new A9III with the global shutter? It is quite the technological advancement! Great work Sony.
Nikon still sells a 300 2.8
Great bringing these 2 amazing lenses together.
I'm waiting for Sigma or Tamron to launch this lens for cheaper