Sony Setup Guide: learn.mattgranger.com/courses/alpha Sample Files: learn.mattgranger.com/courses/30028 Take 50% off the current price of all my full photography courses - including bundle deals! Use the code april24 at checkout and the discount will be instantly applied! More details in caption.
Thank´s for your really good content and review, Matt! Totally agree, I got my 300 2.8 GM couple weeks ago and the results are amazing! But the results concerning image quality with my 400 2.8 and 600 f4 are stunning as well. The really game changer in comparison to the 400 2.8 is the weight saving and the handling of this 300 2.8 lens. Furthermore much cheaper as the 400 2.8 (of course it is still expensive but in this "champions league" of glasses its much cheaper then the 400 2.8).
Thanks for the helpful vid. I recently ordered an a9iii and now I'm tempted by a 300 GM. Pixel peeping your raw files, ex 300GM/a9iii, helped convince me that this is a very potent combo. I shoot all sorts as an amateur (generalist), but particularly love sports action and portraiture, less so nature, but I'm open minded to dabbling in that and other genres. I don't know why I have been hesitating (probably the absolute £££) but I'm minded to buy this lens soon. Watched your stuff years ago when you were "That Nikon Guy". Just re-subbed. I was a Nikon shooter for 20+ yrs but switched to Sony mirrorless nearly 6 YAG. Now up to circa 15 Sony lenses and must sell one or two that don't get much use nowadays. I already own a Sony 200-600mm G and need to decide if I still keep that when I buy a 300GM, or sell my 200-600. I'm lucky in that I can afford to keep both but don't just want to store kit I'm not using (newish resolution). I have long accumulated 'surplus stuff' from that 'bad' habit and need to slim down my kit cupboard. In truth I only use my 200-600 G occasionally, specifically for sport or nature trips, but otherwise it tends to stay home as it's just too big to bring along 'just in case'. Originally I opted for the longer reach of that lens rather than the 100-400GM but later wondered if the smaller size might have made that a better option. When the much improved 70-200mkii GM launched I bought and used that regularly. I now think the quality and speed of the mkii 70-200, coupled with a compact 1.4x and 2x TCs , negates any real need for a 100-400. I already have a 1.4x so if I do buy this new 300GM then a x2 becomes a 'no brainer'. So in future, with an excellent fast 300 f2.8, optional 420 f4 and 600 f5.6 (still great IQ with TC) then apart from sheer speed/convenience of zooming (eg motorsport) I can't see a real role for a 200-60 f6.3? If it's likely going to be a case of choosing which long lens, for any given trip, then the 200-600 G would probably stay home, so selling is my instinct right now. But, as with any new lens I buy, I need to do an informal A vs B comparison to be certain.
I absolutely love this lens. I know everyone says it is light but when you open the box and actually have it in your hands, it just feels amazing. I’m totally hooked on this lens
Hi Matt Thanks for the test of this impressive peace of glass. Do you have experienece on how it performs with the 1.4x and 2x converters? How that compares to the 400 and 600 mm lenses with respect to image quality on a A1 with it’s higher resolution compared to the A9III you used
400 & 600 have slow motors just like the 24GM. They cant be exposed yet because Nikon & Canon refuse to drop bombs on Sony.... I use the A1 and I would never touch the 400GM, 600GM or 24GM because of their motors
Thank you for the review. What do you think of a 300mm as a portrait lens? Do you need so much space between you and the subject that is becomes not practical? This Sony 300mm is very appealing as my next portrait lens, but I am unsure as it would be a very niche lens. What do you think?
I wasn't going to buy the 300mm f2.8 but have just put one on order mainly due to its light weight and size. Amazing quality even with both Teleconverters 🤔
Very informative video on what looks to be a great lens , have you tried it with the 1.4 a 2x TC's and what is the small attachment you have in the hotshoe towards the end of the video ?
I know you've only got a limited amount of time to test things, but I would be curious about 1 thing (and maybe others here have tried this already). The 600 f/4 is obviously phenomenal, but twice the cost and quite a lot to schlep, while the 300 can go more easily in a pack. So I'm wondering how this 300 fares with the 1.4 and 2x teleconverters as a compromise on weight, cost, and size. I know the 2x especially does tend to soften images and can accentuate chromatic aberrations on others (I've seen it when paired on the 600 if you really really pixel peep, for instance), so I'm wondering how the 300 with either of the converters compares, and how much of a compromise they impose. Would an effective 600 f/5.6, in theory, be acceptable when the 600 f/4 is not in the cards?
My wife and I both do bird photography. I have the 600 f4 and it's too much for her to hold up and carry around. We bought her the 300 f2.8 the day it came out. She uses it with the 2x and I have to say, it's hard to tell the difference between it and the 600 f4 in most instances. The 2x on the 600 f4 is good, but looks slightly off. Not on the 300 f2.8. Feather detail is amazing and birds in flight tracking is as fast as the 600 f4. The only time I've been able to see a difference is with very close subjects and a distant background, the 600 f4 has a slightly more blurred background than the 300 f2.8 since its at f5.6 when using the 2x. Also in low light the extra stop means lower ISO but that can be largely negated by the newer noise reduction in Lightroom. If I was buying a long lens for birding today, it would be a very hard decision between these 2 lenses.
I recently just received my 300 last week but haven't tried teleconverters yet. I have tried on both full frame (A9) and crop (A6700) and it's probably my sharpest lens that I own... over my 400mm f2.8. I'm also curious about the teleconverters so next opportunity I get I'll try and provide an update.
I am soo tempted by this lens, especially since it apparently works really well with the teleconverters. It's a bit annoying though.... What I really want is a 400mm F4... Imagine having 400mm F4, 560mm F5.6 and 800mm F8 in roughly that size and weight for about $6K. I think the 300mm F2.8 makes more sense for sports shooters, a 400mm F4 would be better for wildlife.
Hey Matt, Thank you for your review. I wonder if you can use this lens in a situation where, for example, an animal such as a bear is a couple of hundred yards away from you. I like to see what kind of details you can produce . Interested in your feedback and some sample images. Cheers
I am still using Nikon D7500 only because I have the Nikon 300 F4 PF lens that is basically half the weight of this Sony lens. On APS-C, I get equivalent 450mm and in 2x crop, I get 12MP 600mm equivalent at F4 - love the set up for its light weight. But I lack the Focus system from these Sony cameras with AI bird detection and such. With the great, inexpensive Sony A6700 camera, and the newest lens technology, imagine if Sony would make this lens in APS-C version (I would even consider it if it was F4)??? A lens like that between $1000 and $2000 would be reasonably affordable AND super small - I would switch to Sony immediately...
I mean.. If Sony make A6800 with pre-capture, and global shutter or at least stacked sensor, it would increase price about 600$, but I would go for that alone, LOL!
@@hikertrashfilms I guess Nikon would be the first, followed by Sony. Canon has 0 large aperture super telephoto primes for their RF. The 400 and 600 were retrofitted from EF. If I were to guess, I think Canon would make a 200-400mm f/4 RF first.
A company possessing the world's greatest financial and technological potential can produce top-tier products. No other company can compete with Sony in terms of technology and innovation. There is nothing "unbelievable" about that. 😉
Super impressive for sure but it infuriates me why Sony is dragging it's feet on other gems. This is far too short for wildlife and I know you can use TC,s but why can't Sony actually pretend it cares about wildlife shooters and gives us more affordable yet high quality options such as: 100-300 f/4.0G, 400 f/4.5G, 500 f/4.5G, 600 f/6.3G, 800 f/6.3G, 300-800 f/5.6-8.0G Currently I am abandoning Sony for wildlife and exclusively sticking to Nikon and will stick to Sony for lenses up to 200mm.
because Sony destroyed their brand by catering to Vloggers instead of Photographers... They keep slapping flappy screens on cameras, any camera without a up & down tilt screen is a joke for photography
Looks like you should stand your ground with feeling that Sony should come out with a larger flagship camera body especially for better balance and room with larger diameter lenses and long lenses. How much skin did you lose off your knuckles hitting the side of that lens all day? Cameras should be made for average adult hands that will be using them, not baby hands.
not they shouldn't. I own the A1 and I frigging hate the A9iii grip and the way it feels in hand... & I use 50GM & 135GM glass and I have never wanted the grip to be extended out to mimic Canon & Nikon. This is why I bought into Sony.
i really dunno why companies made such long focal length fix lens, i mean its not suitable for sports, as athletes moves not staying still on the same spot therefore using fix lens force u to move around mmove foward backward, as for wildlife like birds, same story, they move around unless you are shooting standstill birds (which those dont exist obviously)
![Kodak Black - Versatile 4 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VcP_1Ua__vY/mqdefault.jpg)
Sony Setup Guide: learn.mattgranger.com/courses/alpha
Sample Files: learn.mattgranger.com/courses/30028
Take 50% off the current price of all my full photography courses - including bundle deals!
Use the code april24 at checkout and the discount will be instantly applied! More details in caption.
Were you able to test focal length at a short distance? Basically, checking if it's close to 300mm at short range.
@@jaimeduncan6167 I didnt have a second to compare it to - but the bird shots were nice and close - see sample files.
Thx for sharing, Matt. 👍🏻 Amazing Lens, our team use the 300 GM since day one.
Thank´s for your really good content and review, Matt! Totally agree, I got my 300 2.8 GM couple weeks ago and the results are amazing! But the results concerning image quality with my 400 2.8 and 600 f4 are stunning as well. The really game changer in comparison to the 400 2.8 is the weight saving and the handling of this 300 2.8 lens. Furthermore much cheaper as the 400 2.8 (of course it is still expensive but in this "champions league" of glasses its much cheaper then the 400 2.8).
Yea... I just got mine after waiting for months.. the weight is like non existent.. so good !
Thanks for the helpful vid. I recently ordered an a9iii and now I'm tempted by a 300 GM. Pixel peeping your raw files, ex 300GM/a9iii, helped convince me that this is a very potent combo. I shoot all sorts as an amateur (generalist), but particularly love sports action and portraiture, less so nature, but I'm open minded to dabbling in that and other genres. I don't know why I have been hesitating (probably the absolute £££) but I'm minded to buy this lens soon. Watched your stuff years ago when you were "That Nikon Guy". Just re-subbed. I was a Nikon shooter for 20+ yrs but switched to Sony mirrorless nearly 6 YAG. Now up to circa 15 Sony lenses and must sell one or two that don't get much use nowadays.
I already own a Sony 200-600mm G and need to decide if I still keep that when I buy a 300GM, or sell my 200-600. I'm lucky in that I can afford to keep both but don't just want to store kit I'm not using (newish resolution). I have long accumulated 'surplus stuff' from that 'bad' habit and need to slim down my kit cupboard. In truth I only use my 200-600 G occasionally, specifically for sport or nature trips, but otherwise it tends to stay home as it's just too big to bring along 'just in case'. Originally I opted for the longer reach of that lens rather than the 100-400GM but later wondered if the smaller size might have made that a better option. When the much improved 70-200mkii GM launched I bought and used that regularly. I now think the quality and speed of the mkii 70-200, coupled with a compact 1.4x and 2x TCs , negates any real need for a 100-400. I already have a 1.4x so if I do buy this new 300GM then a x2 becomes a 'no brainer'.
So in future, with an excellent fast 300 f2.8, optional 420 f4 and 600 f5.6 (still great IQ with TC) then apart from sheer speed/convenience of zooming (eg motorsport) I can't see a real role for a 200-60 f6.3? If it's likely going to be a case of choosing which long lens, for any given trip, then the 200-600 G would probably stay home, so selling is my instinct right now. But, as with any new lens I buy, I need to do an informal A vs B comparison to be certain.
I absolutely love this lens. I know everyone says it is light but when you open the box and actually have it in your hands, it just feels amazing. I’m totally hooked on this lens
Love this lens! I think it’s the perfect alternative to the 400/2.8, which is the reason why you see a lot of 400mm in the used market at the moment.
Hi Matt Thanks for the test of this impressive peace of glass. Do you have experienece on how it performs with the 1.4x and 2x converters? How that compares to the 400 and 600 mm lenses with respect to image quality on a A1 with it’s higher resolution compared to the A9III you used
400 & 600 have slow motors just like the 24GM. They cant be exposed yet because Nikon & Canon refuse to drop bombs on Sony....
I use the A1 and I would never touch the 400GM, 600GM or 24GM because of their motors
Thank you for the review. What do you think of a 300mm as a portrait lens? Do you need so much space between you and the subject that is becomes not practical? This Sony 300mm is very appealing as my next portrait lens, but I am unsure as it would be a very niche lens. What do you think?
I wasn't going to buy the 300mm f2.8 but have just put one on order mainly due to its light weight and size. Amazing quality even with both Teleconverters 🤔
Great video, Matt.
When are you coming to the UK for a model (or other) photography event?
2019 was fab!
Very informative video on what looks to be a great lens , have you tried it with the 1.4 a 2x TC's and what is the small attachment you have in the hotshoe towards the end of the video ?
I know you've only got a limited amount of time to test things, but I would be curious about 1 thing (and maybe others here have tried this already). The 600 f/4 is obviously phenomenal, but twice the cost and quite a lot to schlep, while the 300 can go more easily in a pack. So I'm wondering how this 300 fares with the 1.4 and 2x teleconverters as a compromise on weight, cost, and size. I know the 2x especially does tend to soften images and can accentuate chromatic aberrations on others (I've seen it when paired on the 600 if you really really pixel peep, for instance), so I'm wondering how the 300 with either of the converters compares, and how much of a compromise they impose. Would an effective 600 f/5.6, in theory, be acceptable when the 600 f/4 is not in the cards?
For me the review from Mark Galer is answering this question.
ruclips.net/video/brscktlYNzo/видео.htmlsi=Axs48B12oiRtzYgJ
My wife and I both do bird photography. I have the 600 f4 and it's too much for her to hold up and carry around. We bought her the 300 f2.8 the day it came out. She uses it with the 2x and I have to say, it's hard to tell the difference between it and the 600 f4 in most instances. The 2x on the 600 f4 is good, but looks slightly off. Not on the 300 f2.8. Feather detail is amazing and birds in flight tracking is as fast as the 600 f4. The only time I've been able to see a difference is with very close subjects and a distant background, the 600 f4 has a slightly more blurred background than the 300 f2.8 since its at f5.6 when using the 2x. Also in low light the extra stop means lower ISO but that can be largely negated by the newer noise reduction in Lightroom. If I was buying a long lens for birding today, it would be a very hard decision between these 2 lenses.
@@kylegreene3773 Thanks for the feedback!
I recently just received my 300 last week but haven't tried teleconverters yet. I have tried on both full frame (A9) and crop (A6700) and it's probably my sharpest lens that I own... over my 400mm f2.8. I'm also curious about the teleconverters so next opportunity I get I'll try and provide an update.
+1 for providing the RAW files for free.
Why do you have GoPro mounted in the camera
Well done.
I am soo tempted by this lens, especially since it apparently works really well with the teleconverters. It's a bit annoying though.... What I really want is a 400mm F4... Imagine having 400mm F4, 560mm F5.6 and 800mm F8 in roughly that size and weight for about $6K. I think the 300mm F2.8 makes more sense for sports shooters, a 400mm F4 would be better for wildlife.
Is this good for a Safari trip? Or is longer better?
Depends what animals and how’re you’re travelling - but I’d say 400-800mm
Cool lens. Great video.
Have you gone all in with Sony?
Nope. I review all brands, but strangely whenever test Sony stuff, I get this question haha. I use Nikon and Hasselblad for my work.
WIll we ever see a Sony GM 85mm F1.2?
Nice lens and photos!
Hey Matt,
Thank you for your review. I wonder if you can use this lens in a situation where, for example, an animal such as a bear is a couple of hundred yards away from you. I like to see what kind of details you can produce . Interested in your feedback and some sample images.
Cheers
I don’t own it sorry. Returned it after the review.
I am still using Nikon D7500 only because I have the Nikon 300 F4 PF lens that is basically half the weight of this Sony lens. On APS-C, I get equivalent 450mm and in 2x crop, I get 12MP 600mm equivalent at F4 - love the set up for its light weight. But I lack the Focus system from these Sony cameras with AI bird detection and such. With the great, inexpensive Sony A6700 camera, and the newest lens technology, imagine if Sony would make this lens in APS-C version (I would even consider it if it was F4)??? A lens like that between $1000 and $2000 would be reasonably affordable AND super small - I would switch to Sony immediately...
I mean.. If Sony make A6800 with pre-capture, and global shutter or at least stacked sensor, it would increase price about 600$, but I would go for that alone, LOL!
Let's see if Sony could come up with a US$6000 1.5kg 200mm f/2.0 in the future
Canon will update the 200mm F2 to RF before Sony does their own....
@@hikertrashfilms Any insider rumors?
@@shang-hsienyang1284 no, it’s just a gut instinct.
@@hikertrashfilms I guess Nikon would be the first, followed by Sony. Canon has 0 large aperture super telephoto primes for their RF. The 400 and 600 were retrofitted from EF. If I were to guess, I think Canon would make a 200-400mm f/4 RF first.
I have the canon 300mm mk2, and thats 2,4 kg, 0,9 kg lighter, amazing. Just wish canon would release something like that, I am kind of tied to Canon.
I’m a user of the 400/2.8 but if I needed a 300/2.8. I would get the 100-300/2.8. It eliminates owning a 70-200/2.8.
A company possessing the world's greatest financial and technological potential can produce top-tier products. No other company can compete with Sony in terms of technology and innovation. There is nothing "unbelievable" about that. 😉
Welcome to Hong Kong !
Thanks. I live here.
Was letzte Preis?
Super impressive for sure but it infuriates me why Sony is dragging it's feet on other gems. This is far too short for wildlife and I know you can use TC,s but why can't Sony actually pretend it cares about wildlife shooters and gives us more affordable yet high quality options such as:
100-300 f/4.0G, 400 f/4.5G, 500 f/4.5G, 600 f/6.3G, 800 f/6.3G, 300-800 f/5.6-8.0G
Currently I am abandoning Sony for wildlife and exclusively sticking to Nikon and will stick to Sony for lenses up to 200mm.
because Sony destroyed their brand by catering to Vloggers instead of Photographers... They keep slapping flappy screens on cameras, any camera without a up & down tilt screen is a joke for photography
Sample files are not currently working 4/18/2024
Thanks for the heads up - I checked and one of the links was formatted wrongly. Its all good now
Sony makes the best lenses on the market
...not at 85mm
A Sony a7CR with a 300 f/2.8 weighs over a pound less than a Nikon D850 with a 70-200 !!!
I would hope its not unbelievable a lens that costs 10 grand is good
That's a mirrorless lens. Can't compare it to other ones since they're all for DSLR.
😂😂😂😂😂
Man, you lost a lot of weight.
Yep
Looks like you should stand your ground with feeling that Sony should come out with a larger flagship camera body especially for better balance and room with larger diameter lenses and long lenses. How much skin did you lose off your knuckles hitting the side of that lens all day? Cameras should be made for average adult hands that will be using them, not baby hands.
not they shouldn't. I own the A1 and I frigging hate the A9iii grip and the way it feels in hand... & I use 50GM & 135GM glass and I have never wanted the grip to be extended out to mimic Canon & Nikon. This is why I bought into Sony.
I have xl hands and no issues, now if I were wearing gloves when shooting I could see it being problematic.
i really dunno why companies made such long focal length fix lens, i mean its not suitable for sports, as athletes moves not staying still on the same spot therefore using fix lens force u to move around mmove foward backward, as for wildlife like birds, same story, they move around unless you are shooting standstill birds (which those dont exist obviously)
Image quality.