I have just purchased the 300mm to go with my Sony A1 . I have used both converters, a great light weight 420mm f4 and 600mmf5.6 . I think the AF is still very fast because of the short travel of the two linear motors . Just done my initial use video already & have some awesome photos with this lens . Great Summary Jan. I can agree with all your conclusions and confirm it is the fastest and sharpest longer reach Sony lens. Only the 135 f 1.8 is sharper and slightly faster I th🤔ink
My friend got this lens when it first came out. After trying it out with both TCs, I've been borrowing it from him any time he isn't using it. I currently own 600GM and 400GM and have never been happy with the AF consistency with the 2xTC on those two lenses. IQ can be good but AF just isn't good enough for BIF. I was amazed how well the 300GM took both TCs. My 2xTC had been collecting dust until trying he 300GM. I think the bare 300GM is the fastest focusing lens I've used from Sony and this helps it retain relatively fast AF and accurate AF even with he 2xTC. Needless to say, I have my 400GM up for sale and will be replacing it with the 300GM as soon as it sells. This lens is basically an equivalent to the Nikon 500PF I used to own and the Z600PF that I would own if I still shot Nikon. I nice walk around lens compared to my 400 and 600GM lenses. It will be a bit sad to let the 400GM go but I think this 300GM will pair perfectly with my 600GM. Thanks for your review Jan. Great work on that Azure KF....I used the A1/300GM/2xTC to shoot our larger Belted Kingfisher here in Canada...probably not as difficult as that little guy you have but still impressive a lens with 2xTC can keep up.
Hi Jan, I own the 600mm and the 300mm. As a hummingbird photographer I've struggled with the 600mm being 8ft at least away from my subject and when the hummer is moving finding it and keeping on it has been difficult. Not to mention the bazooka barrel crashing into branches. I went to Colombia in May and used the 300mm with the 1.4 and 2x tele about 95% of the time. For that was so strange as my 600mm was my primary. Not only how light the lens was but how much closer I was able to get and fill my frame with the hummers was a game changer. I actually bought the 200-600mm twice over time and for low light it's horrific. I have not seen a difference in using the tele regarding image quality. Maybe others do but I was able to get some great sharp images. The A1 with the 300mm locks on right away with bird AF. Sometimes in low light the AF hard a hard time but once I lowered my shutter speed or bumped up the ISO it found it. For sure both the 600mm and 300mm are in my camera bag at all times. I feel I have the best of all worlds covered for hummingbirds!
I've recently bought the Sony 300mm to use with x2 TC as a replacement for the Sony 200-600. It is a great combination bettering the 200-600 in sharpness, max aperture (f5.6 vs f6.3) and close focus (2m vs 2.4m). Additionally it is a true 600mm at 2m compared with the 200-600 which is more like 550mm when focused close. Regarding the lack of 'normal' lens cap, I spent £5.95 on a plain 105mm pinch lens caps that seems to work fine. I'm also finding the DMF on the lens great to pull focus when necessary.
I agree with both of you. The primary alternative is the sigma. The price is better, but having a lens that can be 300/2.8 or 420/4 and isn’t hobbled by Sony made it worth it for me. The lens I missed most leaving Nikon was the 500/5.6 PF, and we now have two excellent replacements for Sony.
@@Dan.gibson.photographer Hello Dan When I am photographing small songbirds I use a minimum of an 800 mm lens . Because that's what it takes to do small songbirds . Talk to anybody that photographs songbirds and they'll tell you the same thing usually between 800 and a 1000 mm and that's what it takes .
I have a 500mm F4 lens which pairs up well with extenders if I need more reach. The 300mm 2.8 pairs really well with 1.4x extender for photographing birds in rain forest where the bird can range between 3 to 10 meters away. The ability to handhold and be tripod free is important when navigating narrow tracks 😊
Jan, I have had this lens for several months now. I have really been enjoying it. It does out perform the 200-600. The AF has been great and when coupled with the a1 I am very pleased with the details it can render from even a large crop. Great setup.
I’ve been hoping to get your review of this lens with the teleconverters. I developed tennis elbow shooting with the 200-600, and still working on recovery. The 300 + TC is noticeably lighter. I am hoping to have one in my bag before the end of the year.
I have had the Sony 300 GM lens from when it first came out in March. I agree entirely with your review. I think it is Sony's best lens and what I would recommend to wildlife photographers. Ever since I got the 300 it has been my go-to lens and one I use the most with and with teleconverters. The 600 GM makes a good companion lens for Sony wildlife photographers for when more reach is required and when less mobile.
The lens seems excellent from all the reviews. But it's very expensive and a bit short for my use (sports). I wish Sony and Canon had a 400 f4 with a price similar to the Nikon's.
Nikon is a 400mm 4.5, I did expect Sony to make a 400mm 4.5 since it was an excellent and popular Lens made by Minolta which Sony bought. I can recommend the excellent Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS Sports.
@@cameraprepper7938 I'm aware of the Sigma, but I shoot sports and 5.6 is very dark for winter. I'm also wondering about AF since Damien Bernal found only 70 % sharps at his (tough) running dog test. A native 400 f4 or 4.5 would be a better option for me.
@@benoittissier58 I do not know who Bemal is, but others I have seen using the Sigma, my self included have no problem. A 400mm do not have the same reach and 4.5 to 5.6 is nothing !
I like using the function ring for digital zoom (APS-C shooting). With the A7R5, you get plenty of pixels. That, along with the 1.4 TC is a great combo, the best of all worlds. I found the 2.0 TC is just a bit too much in terms of sacrificing sharpness, bokeh and speed.
Hi Jan ,I have this lens since january ,I guess I was first in Finland. I have been using with both teleconverters with my 33mpix a7Cll and I am very pleased with the suberb IQ and light weight. Its so light that I have not yet used even monopod. AF is very good in flight photos. I photogaph many times birds on winter feeding places where you can go close to the birds and I am not regretting that I traded my Canon EF 500mm prime to this lens. Next week I am getting a6700 crop body and first time I test this 300mm 2,8 without tc:s where its 450mm equivalent. Thank you for a excelent review. Cheers
@@pentagramyt417 I got a6700and today ,first photos with fe 300mm 2,8. Birds eye af worked well and I was also photographing fast flying small gulls with good tracking results. I was cropping final pics a lot on computer but still there were very good details and sharpness. So first impressions are very good with bare lens. Tomorrow im gonna try this combo with 1,4 ext where it is 630mm equivalent lens f4.
Hi Jan, me setup is different than most. My main body is the original A9 but don’t like to use it for wildlife…. Instead I use the 300mm with the 1.4 on my A6700 and is my go to every time unless I need more reach then I’ll use my 200-600 with the A6700. Couldn’t be more happier and makes me wonder if I will ever purchase the 600mm f4 now.
Preordered the lens when it was first launched but didn’t make the purchase eventually. I went for Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM because of its versatility and image quality. As you said, 300mm f/2.8 makes a great compliment to telephoto prime lenses of longer focal lengths (RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM in my case).
Great review and agree with all you have said. I've had the 300 & both converters for just over a month now. I cant fault it using my A7RV with its cropping in post advantages. I have 200-600 as well and now with the 300 being much lighter, great in lower light and faster handling has virtually made that lens redundant (almost 🤔).
Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob ich für das tolle Review danke sagen sollte, weil ich jetzt das Objektiv kaufen möchte :D. Aber vielen Dank für das tolle Video :)
Hello Jan do you think is it still worth to buy a Sony FE 600mm F4 GM even it's 5 years old now or enjoy the new FE 300mm f2.8 + TC's until 600mm GM II to be anounched :) ? Thank you.
Only get the 600GM if you really need longer reach beyond 600. Otherwise just get the new 300GM n use x2 tc. 600 F5.6 is fine.. 300GM is also lighter, smaller, cheaper than the 600GM. Making it easier to use, hold and travel with. Highly recommand.
Very nice & balanced review! The 300mm 2.8 replaced my 400mm 2.8 because of the weight savings. My main purpose however is wildlife on safari and only occasionally birds.
Yeah I find 500mm often to not be enough for birds. For sports 300mm is great but I would prefer a zoom to get wider shots easily. 300 prime just isnt for me but it looks like an excellent lens anyway.
Thank you for your insightful review. I purchased this lens almost 3 months ago and had been using it with my A7 IV through much of spring until I recently. Prior to that for birds I had been shooting with the Sony 200-600 which I loved but found rather heavy, especially after a full day of shooting. Over time I found I like handheld much better than using a tripod and in most instances like to travel light so I've kind of settled into that. So when this 300 GM was announced I became intrigued at the fact that here was a telephoto PRIME lens. 2.8. That weighed just a bit over 3 lbs! Over 2 lbs lighter than my current setup. Well I ended up getting it and have been very happy with it. That and using it with both Sony TCs. That is what I found so remarkable about how well the IQ was with both TCs. For that alone you are getting a 300 2.8, 420 4.0 and 600 5.6 for around 7K. You can't beat that! I ended up selling my Sony A7 IV after 3 years because I had been thinking about either an A1 or A9 III. Then I thought, should I wait for the A1 Mark II? But after a friend ended up getting an A9 III and I saw what it could do I could not get it off of my mind. I have many friends who shoot with the A1. It is a great camera but I felt funny about getting a camera over 3 years old, so I opted for the A9 III and an A7RV mainly for the updated form factor and AI AF tech. I have ZERO regrets. Even though I have the A7RV which is a great camera in itself with 61 MP of resolution, I have not been able to put down the A9 III and 300 GM combo with the two TCs. I'm very impressed with your kingfisher shot and just had a similar experience a couple of days ago catching a least bittern in flight over water. Like you I was amazed at how quickly the camera focused on the bird and kept focus throughout the flight sequence and ended up with some really good shots! This is a remarkable lens with both TCs and for anyone who likes handheld you can't beat it for the outstanding IQ and how well balanced it feels in your hands. With the A9 III and 300 GM combo (and 2 TCs) you have a great setup IMO for bird photography. My hope is that Sony somehow finds a way to lower the weight and size of their larger primes in their 2nd generation versions. It would be nice to be able to have a 600 that is lighter and smaller.
Great video and this lens seems amazing! Personally, I love and hate 300mm. I have the Nikon 300mm f/4 PF and think its a wonderful lens. I've taken some of my favourite photos with that lens, its such as an incredible optic but I also find that I struggle more with other 300mm length than any other, its so hard to make good use of it. As you mention, its typically too short for most wildlife situations but on the flip side, its too long for most other genres. I force myself to use it because it has such incredible potential and I want to get better at using it. That said, I know it is possible to make amazing work with 300 as Tom Mason built his entire career as a wildlife photographer using a 300 2.8. He is using other lenses now but for a long time that was his exclusive lens and he made spectacular work with it.
Given the ridiculously low weight of the 300 f/2.8 GM, I full expect Sony to be working on a new 400 f/2.8 GM II that reduces weight by at least 500g. If we could get the 400 f/2.8 down to 2.3kg at most, it would become immensely desirable. Sony did what most thought impossible in getting the 300 down to 1.47kg, that basically a 1kg drop on last gen 300 f/2.8's, so I have no doubt same production techniques for 400 and 600 should see further large improvements, and being larger lenses they will tend to have larger absolute weight reductions. In fact, It wouldn't surprise me to see a 400 f/2.8 at 2.1-2.2kg and 600 f/4 at 2.2-2.4kg. 400 is my ideal option for birding. Much more compact than the 600 and would make awesome 560 f/4 and 800 f/5.6. Have the Nikon 400 f/4.5 and 800 f/6.3 and perfect combo, but would be amazing to have 1 lens to do it all. I still the new Nikon 400 f/2.8 with built-in too heavy to hold at eye level for more than a few minutes unlike the 800. 2.4kg is definitely my upper limit, and 200-300g less would be perfect. Another option that would be amazing, would be a 500 f/4.5 larger brother of the Nikon 400 f/4.5. I'd expect that to only weight 1.6-1.7kg and that gets you a 700 f/6.3 combo.
Hi Jan, this most certainly looks like a nice toy, but from a distance I'd assume the Nikon 600/5.6 PF looks about the same price and weight, and similar bokeh when adding the 2x. But the Nikon wins the small birds because you can still add extenders. Of course, when money is no concern and someone wants the blazing fast a9iii with a light medium-long lens, then this may a no-brainer. But I can not afford ditching my Canon gear for what you impressively showcased in this episode. I do sympathize with the Kookaburra getting too close .. last month we were searching baby foxes near Amsterdam .. and one of them approached me closer than the MFD at 200mm of the 200-800 🙈
I was very close to buy the Sony 300mm 2.8 GM with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, but then the Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS Sports 024 Lens was rumored/announced and I bought the Sigma which is an excellent Lens, very compact, light weight, easy to use and handle, excellent optical image quality, you can go hiking in the nature with it in yours hands for hours without problems and it is under half the price than the Sony 300mm + teleconverters. I can recommend the Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS Sports 024 Lens !
The 300 mm f2.8 appeared to me as extremely versatile. This weekend I have been on a bird photography workshop organized by OM System. They made me the OM-1 MKII (stacked backlit 20 MP Micro Four Third sensor) with 40-150 mm f2.8 zoom (80-300 mm full frame) available. This focal range the compact size, large aperture and IP53 rating (it was raining) was such a fantastic experience that we purchased that combo. This OM-1 combo came for EUR 4000 (recommended sales price, I got good discount from that). The pictures we took, look amazing, especially the birds in flight. I can recommend to attend such bird photography workshops. Your skill determines 90 % of the image quality. The camera of today’s gear the rest. Compact size and low weight definitely will contribute to your ability to follow birds in flight and thus improve your skill level.
I have been using the 300/2.8 + converters for a month or so now, and I couldn’t be more pleased. This is a lens you can carry to the places you actually find the wildlife you want to shoot, and getting there is still fun. It is lighter and sharper than my 200-600, and it is better balanced. Put this together with one of the new 70-200 zooms, and you have it covered at a weight that doesn’t break my (>65 ) back.
For what it is, it's probably a spectacular lens, but I feel like it isn't really a great choice for most wildlife photographers. Would be pretty handy for puffins or other birds you can get real close to, though. 😁
I don't think Canon or Sony users will switch systems based on the Canon 100-300 vs Sony 300 prime but the obvious differences is the canon is 1Kg heavier and twice the price as the Sony, were as the Canon has the advantage of being a zoom.
@@simonfinnegan7819 I am not suggesting that they change systems based on the conveniences of a single lens. I just wanted to see a comparative review of the pros and cons of these two different but exciting lenses from Jan for educating future potential investors on which lens better serves the purpose of bird and wildlife photography.
@@simonfinnegan7819 The RF 100-300 isn't twice the price though. It's like 50% or so. The price difference is there because it's basically replacing the 70-200. If you add the release price of the original EF 300 2.8 is ii and the rf 70-200 you get the price of the RF 100-300.
@@kpopfanphotos Here in the UK the canon is £11,499 while the Sony is £5,799 so here it is twice the price and just for the record the Sony 70-200 is £2,479
400 F2.8…. For just 100mm more you want to pay double the price? And double the weight and alot bigger in size lens? Also the 400 wont take tc better than the 300GM.
For me it's a little too short on the A1. Instead the 300/2.8 with the 1.4TC (420/f4) i can also use my "old" 100-400/5.6 GM without the TC. It's also a small, lightweight an very sharp lens with a great flexibility. With the 1,4TC i got 560/8 with also a very good sharpness and speed. I sold my 200-600 and my 600/4 and i hope Sony will develop an lightweight 500/4 with the performance of the 300/2.8 in the future (1,8 to 2,0 Kg ?), a new 100-400 Mark II (like the 70-200 II with an internal zoom) or the patented 150-400/4. P.S. -> Your channel is great !! Best wishes from Germany !!
I’’m glad the 100-400 worked well for you with a converter. Mine didn’t perform nearly as well as this 300. Even at 1.4x, (420mm) I have a stop more speed and (for me) than I got from the 100-400 without a converter and AF that is at least as good. My 100-400 didn’t perform with the 1.4x as well as I wanted at longer than about 500mm.
Very useful video! That lens sounds like a dream, lightweight and with great low light performance and compatibility with teleconverters. Do you know if the older Canon/Nikon 300mm 2.8 lenses have equally good performance?
They're good, but I don't believe at this level, in terms of AF with a 2x. The Canon 100-300 seems to benefit from stopping down with a 2x, which then makes it more tricky to get the fast shutter speeds at F8. I have not used that lens, tho, so this is just what friends have told me
Just got this lens and am really enjoying having what is effectively 3 lenses in one - I have the flexiblity of the different lengths while enjoying the sharpness of the prime lens and great AF. I've found uses with wildlife for all three (300mm 2.8 bare and then adding both TCs which I had anyway in turn) and it's such fun to use. Worth saving for given how good it is with the TCs and gives you three options. I enjoyed the 200-600mm immensely and it's a great lens but this is lighter and brighter. I couldn't carry, hand hold or more importantly afford the bigger primes so this has offered a fantastic upgrade to my glass and it'll be my one and done for now.
Even IF money is no issue. I dontwant to and I cant handhold a 3kg lens whole day. To be honest. Also the 400 and 600 is huge in size. Making it troublesome to use in the field and transport it aroud eg aeroplane or etc. I hope the GM ii of those lenses will be able to shave off some weight and size. Then it will be awesome!
Hi Jan, I was waiting for this review. I'm definitely going to buy this lens and replace my Sigma Sport 150-600. I seek for slightly better aperture and lower weight as I only shoot handheld. Thanks for the review it was really very helpful. PS. I love your azure kingfisher photos. Great job as always. 🎉
Excellent and detailed review, thank you. I'm heavily invested in Canon gear, but if I was starting over, I'd definitely be tempted to give the new Sony kit a try. BTW, a data point on availability of the Canon 200-800mm... I ordered one at the beginning of February (UK), and it arrived on Friday. It's hardly been out of my hands since 🙂
Your review really emphasizes that for bird and wildlife photographers autofocus speed, accuracy, and tracking, fast frame rates, high resolution sensors, IBIS and optical image stabilization, bright prime lenses, and excellent technique are the magic technical ingredients for capturing superb action images.
Great review Jan, I've personally been looking for lightweight lens because hand holding the 200-600mm has been hurting my back. The 2x converter adds additional weight and cost that make it hard to justify. The Sigma 500mm seems like a good option because of it's even smaller size and weight. The lens has about 5 negatives over my 200-600mm, but I would be willing to sacrifice a few things for the weight.
Between 300 mm GM with x2.0 TC is about MAYBE 400-500 grams of difference from 200-600 if you include tripod hood and lens hood + TC weight, so that's unworthy, image quality with x2.0 TC and contrast drops down, and is unworth this price after that. There's not THAT MUCH of the difference between these two lenses (300 mm + x2.0 tc VS 200-600 at 600 mm). 500 mm f5.6 is a sweet spot.
@@pentagramyt417 I agree. The lens would make a good 420mm F4 with the 1.4x though, it would make a great birds in flight lens and useful in low light. I just wouldn't want to be swapping teleconverters all the time. I done some tests with my 200-600mm over the weekend and found i'm at 600mm permanently but many times i'm almost framing the shot in camera, if I had a fixed focal length, 500mm would be a sweet spot allowing me to crop to reframe or keep the shot wider to show some environment.
@@pentagramyt417 I'll also add that I'm only framing shots at 600mm in situations where a lightweight lens is justified, like when I'm being stealthy on hikes. Most other situations 600mm is never enough haha
@@KurtisPape Excatly, and it's way easier to get the shot done on zoom lens, it's heavy, but with monopod it makes it good on every shutterspeed though. Of course we can't shoot handheld 1/30 on this lens as there is lack of good stabilization in sony. 500 mm sigma is great option for lightweight kit, and with camera like A7-IV, A7Rx it can be even better for later cropping situations. For me 600 mm is usually not enough, I'd get 800 mm f6.3 whenever possible in sony kit :P
Great review! What do you think about using this lens with both 2x and 1.4 TCs for 840 mm f8? I am currently using 200-600 mm with a1, but more often than not also with 1.4 TC. I am wondering if 300 mm with 2 TCs stacked could be a better option.
@@jan_wegener You are right, they are not supposed to be stacked. People used an extension tube to do that, not really a proper way and you lose infinity focus.
What's not to like? Its not a 100-300 f2.8 (or a 180-400 f4). Between this and Canon's 100-300 f2.8 zoom, there is no way you are picking the Sony lens. Also, 300mm is not a wildlife or most outdoor sports lens, and for indoor sports being locked at 300mm is a huge drawback. I honestly don't know who this lens is for. This is a razor thin use case lens. You can tell yourself that, well, I can just swap in and out TC's and various camera bodies all day and make this lens more than what it is. Good luck with that.
Man you are comparing apples with potatoes. First of all: weight. 100-300 2,65kg, with 2x 3kg! Sony 300 1,45kg and 1,65kg with 2x tc! That’s half the weight. Second, the Canon is also double the price! Here in Europe 100-300 is priced over 12,500 euro; Sony’s 6,200 euro. You really cannot compare this two options. Third factor, for me, it’s Canon AF, just sold R5, R7 and 100-500 (I’m still crying for this masterpiece lens) because it’s not at Sony’s level for raptors in flight (here in Italy animals are not confident like Australia, North America and north Europe itself). I’m not talking about shed/carnage, I’m talking about serious bif. I’ve tried my friend’s A1 and 300 2.8 with 2x all the time and I completely fell in love. It’s a 600 5,6, that’s it. And it costs like a Nikon pf 600 6.3, but at better quality. Mind blowing. With A1 in crop mode you have a 900mm zoom with a button with 21 stunning mpx. Or 300-450mm sort of zoom without tc, or 420-630mm with 1,4x. Come one, what are we talking about? This lens is so sharp it doesn’t know the difference between tcs and no tcs. Modern zoom made people think with fixed lenses you sì an shoot no more. Again, you’re comparing a fixed prime razor sharp lens with a zoom that costs double the price at also double the weight.
@@ph_anto It's not double the price in the US. It's $6000 vs $9500 for just the lens. Anyone who is able/willing to buy a $6000 lens (not to mention also an A1 and A9III as suggested in this video for $12500 combined cost, no to mention the additional costs of TC's, memory cards, and accessories) is also able/willing to buy a $9500 lens, so that is largely a moot point. In any case, the Canon R5/100-300 f2.8 is actually $100 cheaper than the Sony A1/300 f2.8. Yes, cheaper. You may not realize this, but the R5 can also shoot in crop mode. Yup, that is also true. So all that zoom math you did also applies to the Canon in addition to its physical zoom capability. Dream on that the A1/300 f2.8 with the 2x TC is better than the Z8/600 PF combo at 600mm regardless of price. That's a win for Nikon all day. Your claim that "it costs like a Nikon PF 600" is straight up false. The A1/300 f2.8 plus a 2x TC to get to 600mm is $13050 in the US. The Z8/600 PF is $7800. For $750 more, you get the Nikon Z8, 600 PF, and the 800 PF, and Sony has nothing that can even remotely compete with that trio. If you think Sony is far ahead in AF over Canon's and Nikon's top offerings, all that really shows is that you don't know what you are talking about. These are all on par now for wildlife and sports action. Yes, each of them have quirks. Sony does, Canon does, and Nikon does. None of them are 100% perfect, but all are well beyond what is needed. I have not shot with the A9III yet, so I cannot opine on that one. I have shot plenty on the R5, A1 and Z8/Z9. For wildlife and sports action stills, they are on par with each other. Nikon does beat Canon and Sony in wildlife and sports action video AF by a wide margin last I compared. The real difference maker right now in wildlife and sports action is the lenses, and Sony is dead last in wildlife and sports action lenses. This E 300 f2.8 does nothing to change that. Sony desperately needs to release mid-range (cost) 400mm+ primes/zooms, new 400/600mm pro lenses, and an 800mm mid-range/pro lens. Sony is far behind in the 400mm+ game and this is an irrefutable fact.
@@KungPowEnterFist First of all, spare me that arrogant tone. I approached to you with respect, and so I expect the same, like a civil dialogue. If you keep talking like this, the discussion is over for me no matter what you say. Let's follow an order: - Price. I'm European, the largest pro-capite market, so I consider European prices. I don't care about US prices. Also, these are Japanese product. And we are on an Australian channel. Another time americans think they only exist in this whole world (I really hope you're not). We are 800 million in Europe, US less than 350. Anyway, I don't agree with you with this unfounded theory in which a person able to spend 6k would easily spend 12k (or even 9,5k). Have you ever heard such thing as budget? According to your fallacious reasoning, if someone is willing to spend 10, then let's double it! 20k without blinking an eye. If you can double 6 to 12, than 10 to 20 is like drinking a glass of water. Come on, even you are not drinking that. Having an amount of money does not have to mean to spend them without criteria. - Camera+Lens. You keep calculating lenses prices always with camera. Have you considered someone already has the camera? If I am a Z8 user, at the moment of purchase, I have to pay 6,7k euros for 600 Pf. If I am a A1 user, I have to pay 6,2k for 300 GM + 600e for 2x TC. And you will still have a f6.3 PF VS f5.6 ED lens. Are we still arguing about this nonsense? You clearly do not know what a diffractive optic means (Fresnel, PF, in Nikon product). Of course is better a classic optic than a diffrattive one. Sharpness and contrast will easily be sacrificed in too many situations. Go check them and ask yourself why sport professionists don't use them. Not to mention your so beloved Canon. Which prime wildlife lens for mirroless will you buy at that price? - Weight. I see you took it out with my price math, but suspiciously left out my weight calculation. Maybe because it was incontrovertible? Or do you sincerely believe that literally half the weight does not play a central role in a purchase decision? Not everyone is capable of using 3kg for wildlife. I am, but I can assure you all my certainties crushed against 1.4kg. Feather weight. - Stacked. I see how easily you accused me to don't know what I was talking about (a stranger to you, kudos for respecting the interlocutor) when I praised Sony's AF. I do not know nothing for saying Sony has a better AF than Canon (I had R5 and A1 at the same time), but you comparing a non stacked camera with a stacked one couldn't be accused of the same? OK, mine is an opinion, based on my direct experience side by side on the filed, but ok, only my opinion. Stacked VS cmos traditional sensor is simply math. Calculation per second. A1 does 250 operations per second, R5 60. You hate A1? Use Z8 and R3 for this time. I'm sorry, but as shown before with diffractive optics, I detect some serious basic gaps in photography and math, here. - Sony's leading role. Yes, I declare it again: Canon and Nikon haven't reached Sony, yet. Just because you haven't noticed (or haven't practised a genre in which you can notice) it doesn't mean Sony doesn't have better AF. For many reasons. 1. Sony sold to Nikon Z8/9 stacked sensor. Why on earth a larger competitor could ever sell to a smaller one the same technology to beat em? Do you really think a multinational company is so self destructive? AF points are immersed in the sensor, the AF capacity is strictly related to the sensor. 2. Canon does not have a big mpxl stacked body yet. Rumors about R1 and R5II are really depressing. I have never felt this disappoint between Canon users (I saw falter even the strongest fanboys). 3. Sony and Canon don't have Nikon tele lineup. Sony for technology leading; Canon for marketshare leading. Nikon, that have to buy sensor and doesn't lead the market, must convince new customers in one way: it chose a larger tele lineup. And praise to Nikon, all of that teles and a Z8 so, relatively, cheap, that's a market move! - Sony's tele lack. Yes, again, this 300 GM changes perspective on Sony's lineup. Yes, an 800mm would be nice (not for my photography), but you forgot Sigma's 500mm f5.6. With just a 300mm stunningly 1,4x and 2x convertible, Sony's covered 100-300, 400 4.5 and 600pf areas. In conclusion, I now doubt your experience. I wonder which genre you do practise. Wildlife and sport is a really vague answer. For sport you could mean basketball, which is indoor, controlled light, with "slow" near and well contrasted subjects, such as the majority of sports, even outdoor. Try with F1 300km/h cars, that's a difficult proof for AF, and you have to shoot stacked for that. Ask pros. Then, for wildlife you could mean being hide in a shed waiting for birds eating on your feeder/carnage, I don't know you've been vague. Maybe shooting birds at the swamp. Or big fulfilling-frame mammals. Those are not difficult proof for me. So if you cannot tell the differences I see, I'm glad you don't need that. It's not a fault: just different necessities. Camera average performances have never been so high. I can assure you Sony's leading role is not only good news for us. Competition is always the best choice. But deny the evidence is always wrong as well. Above you can read again the reasons why. And if you're still wondering who can be that crazy to buy a 300gm+2x for high speed flying raptors, here I am. Just like 2 friends of mine and other 3 photography acquaintances. Cheers.
@@ph_anto @phanto21 Spare you the arrogant tone? Then maybe you should not have given it to start with. Typical fanboyism. Whatever you have is the best and everything else is junk. It is obvious you really hate being wrong, even when presented with irrefutable facts that contradict your opinion. Honestly, you can believe whatever you want. I think all the big three have their pro's and con's, strengths and weaknesses, and there are plenty of intangible reasons that require no rhyme or reason as to why you might want to go with brand A or B or whatever. Of course the camera matters. You have to buy a camera body to use the lenses. You also have to buy memory cards, accessories, editing software, a computer, etc. It is a perfectly valid point that someone who is already spending $20k+ on everything else (including other lenses) is just not going to be deterred by one lens costing $3500 more than another when you are trying to be at that level. But if you want to do the math, of course the cost of the camera body comes into play. In this case, the Sony A1 and A9III are far more expensive than the R5 and Z8. They are also more expensive than the Z9 and R3, and then you also add the cost of grip and second battery for the A1 and A9III which makes them even more expensive. You may chose to ignore these facts, but they are facts regardless of what you want to believe. Regarding your comments on Nikon Z 600/800 PF's, clearly you have not used them. These are not budget kit lenses. The only lens sharper of any system, with or without TC's, at 800mm plus than the Z 800 PF is the F 800 f5.6 FL ED VR, though the Z 800 PF is better in virtually every other way. Nothing in any systems current mount is better at 800mm+ than the Z 800 PF, including Sony/Canon/Nikon's pro level lenes (i.e., 400/600 f2.8/f4) with internal/external TC's. Canon's RF 800 f5.6 is essentially the same optically as the EF 800 f5.6 only with improved AF, VR and weight savings. It provides slightly worse sharpness/IQ than the Z 800 PF, and, therefore, it currently sits in third behind both Nikon 800mm options. Sony does not have an 800mm lens. Imagine how ignorant one sounds to claim Sony is the wildlife, birds/BIF, outdoor sports action leader when they do not have an 800mm option. Things only get worse for Sony when you talk about the 400/600 pro level lenses, as Nikon is clearly far ahead here. Built in TC, brother. Built in TC. Canon and Sony have nothing that competes against the Z 600 PF, and it is almost as sharp as the current best 600mm pro lens, the Z 600 f4 TC, at least in the center. Wicked fast/accurate AF, exceptional VR, small, light. You are seriously trying to claim the E 300 f2.8 with a 2x TC (mind you, it's a Sony TC) competes with that? Good luck on that one, bro. Nikon owns the 400mm+ pro and semi-pro lens market right now. Canon has the edge in the 400mm+ budget lens market. The RF 100-400, while not as good as Sony's or Nikon's 100-400, is very inexpensive, small, and light, while providing very decent images. I don't think we need to say much on the RF 100-500. I think the RF 200-800 is poopy but interesting. Then they have the 600/800 f11's, which I also think are poopy but birdwatches seem to like them. Where is Sony in all this? Missing a bunch of lenses, obviously, and not one that they do have is the best at its formula. It's not even a discussion. And of course, Canon and Nikon can bring in all their EF/F options along with plenty of third party offerings that can be adapted. Plenty of those older lenses are still perfectly viable options today. F 300 PF, F 500 PF, and F 500 f4 FL ED VR, to name a few from Nikon. Canon also has plenty still viable EF options via the adapter. What good is the A1 and A9III at wildlife, birds/BIF's, and outdoor sports action, when you have such few super tele options and what they do have is mostly last place stuff. Oh, sorry, let's not leave out the Sigma 500 f5.6 that will only work with Sigma's literally last place TC's. Conclusion, buy whatever you like. The reality is that at no point did Sony ever lead the wildlife, bird/BIF, and outdoor sports action segments. They also never led the captive animal/indoor sports action segments. It's not the bodies holding them back. It's the lenses. They are seriously behind Canon and Nikon in all the applicable lenses (and TC's) for these segments. It's not even close. The E 300 f2.8 does nothing to change that calculus. That does not mean it's a terrible lens or anything like that. It is obviously I am out there shooting wildlife, birds/BIF's, and outdoor sports action a lot more than you, and I have used a lot more of this gear than you. That does not mean I am a better photographer or videographer than you, so stop with the hate. When it comes to the gear, however, it is what it is. Nikon is far ahead right now in these segments. Canon is second. Sony is a distant third. Hopefully, Sony will release 4-5 400mm+ lenses soon, and at least some of those will be best in formula and Sony gets back in the discussion. The E 800mm lens has been rumored for at least 5 years and here we are still with no 800mm offering. But that's not the only huge hole in the lineup. It's ridiculous.
There is no reason to test that out on A9 III / A1 for average customer, who can afford (if at all SOMEDAY EVER) one of that. Even professionaly. Please test this lens on A6700 / A7-IV as for speed with x2.0 TC and sharpness test, for wider base of customers.
To understand what a lens truly can do, I like to test it with the best available cameras. The kingfishers for instance you couldn’t do with another camera. So in a way I’d be doing the lens a disservice. It will be just as good with other cameras but more limited by their AF capabilities and fps
@@jan_wegener That's the clue, sorry if you did not understand, but take those two cameras aside, and put it on A7-IV and recommend it the same way for like A73 or A7IV or any other cameras with the same approach that it's fantastic lens.. Sure it is, but only on the top cameras, and there could be no difference in AF speed for anything below a1/a9 group of cameras. The x2.0 TC might suffocate autofocus speed below A1/A9III/A9II
It's great, that Jan shows the capability of this lens together with the best camera available. Jan is one of the view reviewers, who is able to push the gear to its limits. It is then easy to estimate the performance of other bodies considering their limitations. Also. anybody who will be buying this lens, most likely can also afford the matching camera.
@@renestaempfli1071 _It is then easy to estimate the performance of other bodies considering their limitations._ It's easy to estimate performance on A1/A9 cameras if you can read specifications carefully, and how many AF calculations which camera does. Most of the consumers can hope for having any of these two, and even if they can afford it, they have no possibility to check how it can work or can have false point of view, because a1 is not a7iv or a6700. It's VERY important to test that on the slower bodies. It won't be problem to buy one thing by one, why would anyone have to buy two things at once? You can buy one now, one in a few years later. You need to know what you are buying and when and what is more needed. It's like saying if you can afford Porsche you can buy two Houses. Your bank account my be high, doesn't mean you can afford everything...
Jan Sony is falling into the same trap like Canon , they simply don't have a lens availability like what Nikon has I just cannot understand Sony and Canon why they will not come up with good Bird lense's .
@@jan_wegener Jan Not just the 600 PF how about the 800 PF and how about the old Nikon F model the 500 5.6 just look look at how ahead Nikon is miles ahead compared to Sony and Canon in the lens department , tell me if I'm wrong .
Yes Nikon have some excellent long compact, light weight Lenses, like 400mm 4.5, 500mm 5.6, 600mm 6.3 and 800mm 6.3, but you can get the excellent Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS which I have and can recommend.
@@cameraprepper7938 Cameraprepper , That Sigma 500 F5.6 is the lens I would take as a number one choice , but you can guess what mount they don't make it in ( in the Canon RF mount ) and yes that would be my first choice to buy .
I have just purchased the 300mm to go with my Sony A1 . I have used both converters, a great light weight 420mm f4 and 600mmf5.6 . I think the AF is still very fast because of the short travel of the two linear motors . Just done my initial use video already & have some awesome photos with this lens . Great Summary Jan. I can agree with all your conclusions and confirm it is the fastest and sharpest longer reach Sony lens. Only the 135 f 1.8 is sharper and slightly faster I th🤔ink
Thanks for sharing your insights!
My friend got this lens when it first came out. After trying it out with both TCs, I've been borrowing it from him any time he isn't using it. I currently own 600GM and 400GM and have never been happy with the AF consistency with the 2xTC on those two lenses. IQ can be good but AF just isn't good enough for BIF. I was amazed how well the 300GM took both TCs. My 2xTC had been collecting dust until trying he 300GM. I think the bare 300GM is the fastest focusing lens I've used from Sony and this helps it retain relatively fast AF and accurate AF even with he 2xTC. Needless to say, I have my 400GM up for sale and will be replacing it with the 300GM as soon as it sells. This lens is basically an equivalent to the Nikon 500PF I used to own and the Z600PF that I would own if I still shot Nikon. I nice walk around lens compared to my 400 and 600GM lenses. It will be a bit sad to let the 400GM go but I think this 300GM will pair perfectly with my 600GM. Thanks for your review Jan. Great work on that Azure KF....I used the A1/300GM/2xTC to shoot our larger Belted Kingfisher here in Canada...probably not as difficult as that little guy you have but still impressive a lens with 2xTC can keep up.
Hi Jan, I own the 600mm and the 300mm. As a hummingbird photographer I've struggled with the 600mm being 8ft at least away from my subject and when the hummer is moving finding it and keeping on it has been difficult. Not to mention the bazooka barrel crashing into branches. I went to Colombia in May and used the 300mm with the 1.4 and 2x tele about 95% of the time. For that was so strange as my 600mm was my primary. Not only how light the lens was but how much closer I was able to get and fill my frame with the hummers was a game changer. I actually bought the 200-600mm twice over time and for low light it's horrific. I have not seen a difference in using the tele regarding image quality. Maybe others do but I was able to get some great sharp images. The A1 with the 300mm locks on right away with bird AF. Sometimes in low light the AF hard a hard time but once I lowered my shutter speed or bumped up the ISO it found it. For sure both the 600mm and 300mm are in my camera bag at all times. I feel I have the best of all worlds covered for hummingbirds!
I've recently bought the Sony 300mm to use with x2 TC as a replacement for the Sony 200-600. It is a great combination bettering the 200-600 in sharpness, max aperture (f5.6 vs f6.3) and close focus (2m vs 2.4m). Additionally it is a true 600mm at 2m compared with the 200-600 which is more like 550mm when focused close. Regarding the lack of 'normal' lens cap, I spent £5.95 on a plain 105mm pinch lens caps that seems to work fine. I'm also finding the DMF on the lens great to pull focus when necessary.
I also had the Sony 200-600mm, dumped it and got the excellent Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS Sports.
I agree with both of you. The primary alternative is the sigma. The price is better, but having a lens that can be 300/2.8 or 420/4 and isn’t hobbled by Sony made it worth it for me. The lens I missed most leaving Nikon was the 500/5.6 PF, and we now have two excellent replacements for Sony.
For canon users, I have been using 300mm 2.8 ii with extenders which works very well adapted with R5 and R7.
That 300 2.8 is not nearly enoughof focal length Like I stated to Jan A 600 or an 800 mm lens is what you have to have for birds .
@@garymeredith2441hello
depends where you living. 😏
@@Dan.gibson.photographer Hello Dan When I am photographing small songbirds I use a minimum of an 800 mm lens .
Because that's what it takes to do small songbirds .
Talk to anybody that photographs songbirds and they'll tell you the same thing usually between 800 and a 1000 mm and that's what it takes .
I have a 500mm F4 lens which pairs up well with extenders if I need more reach. The 300mm 2.8 pairs really well with 1.4x extender for photographing birds in rain forest where the bird can range between 3 to 10 meters away. The ability to handhold and be tripod free is important when navigating narrow tracks 😊
Sorry not all of us have $6000 laying around for a lens
Jan, I have had this lens for several months now. I have really been enjoying it. It does out perform the 200-600. The AF has been great and when coupled with the a1 I am very pleased with the details it can render from even a large crop. Great setup.
Thanks for sharing
I’ve been hoping to get your review of this lens with the teleconverters. I developed tennis elbow shooting with the 200-600, and still working on recovery. The 300 + TC is noticeably lighter. I am hoping to have one in my bag before the end of the year.
I have had the Sony 300 GM lens from when it first came out in March. I agree entirely with your review. I think it is Sony's best lens and what I would recommend to wildlife photographers. Ever since I got the 300 it has been my go-to lens and one I use the most with and with teleconverters. The 600 GM makes a good companion lens for Sony wildlife photographers for when more reach is required and when less mobile.
The lens seems excellent from all the reviews. But it's very expensive and a bit short for my use (sports). I wish Sony and Canon had a 400 f4 with a price similar to the Nikon's.
Nikon is a 400mm 4.5, I did expect Sony to make a 400mm 4.5 since it was an excellent and popular Lens made by Minolta which Sony bought. I can recommend the excellent Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS Sports.
@@cameraprepper7938 I'm aware of the Sigma, but I shoot sports and 5.6 is very dark for winter. I'm also wondering about AF since Damien Bernal found only 70 % sharps at his (tough) running dog test. A native 400 f4 or 4.5 would be a better option for me.
@@benoittissier58 I do not know who Bemal is, but others I have seen using the Sigma, my self included have no problem. A 400mm do not have the same reach and 4.5 to 5.6 is nothing !
now sony pls make super light fe 500mm f5.6 gm for my a1.❤❤❤
I can recommend the excellent Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS Sports !
I like using the function ring for digital zoom (APS-C shooting). With the A7R5, you get plenty of pixels. That, along with the 1.4 TC is a great combo, the best of all worlds. I found the 2.0 TC is just a bit too much in terms of sacrificing sharpness, bokeh and speed.
Tempted by the 300. Trying out my new used A1 with the 100-400GM and the 2x and 1.4x. Thanks for the review. Beautiful images Jan.
Thanks!
Hi Jan ,I have this lens since january ,I guess I was first in Finland. I have been using with both teleconverters with my 33mpix a7Cll and I am very pleased with the suberb IQ and light weight. Its so light that I have not yet used even monopod. AF is very good in flight photos. I photogaph many times birds on winter feeding places where you can go close to the birds and I am not regretting that I traded my Canon EF 500mm prime to this lens. Next week I am getting a6700 crop body and first time I test this 300mm 2,8 without tc:s where its 450mm equivalent. Thank you for a excelent review. Cheers
awesome!
Tell me how it was, I am also interested in 300 mm f2.8 + a6700
@@pentagramyt417 I got a6700and today ,first photos with fe 300mm 2,8. Birds eye af worked well and I was also photographing fast flying small gulls with good tracking results. I was cropping final pics a lot on computer but still there were very good details and sharpness. So first impressions are very good with bare lens. Tomorrow im gonna try this combo with 1,4 ext where it is 630mm equivalent lens f4.
Hi Jan, me setup is different than most. My main body is the original A9 but don’t like to use it for wildlife…. Instead I use the 300mm with the 1.4 on my A6700 and is my go to every time unless I need more reach then I’ll use my 200-600 with the A6700. Couldn’t be more happier and makes me wonder if I will ever purchase the 600mm f4 now.
Preordered the lens when it was first launched but didn’t make the purchase eventually. I went for Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM because of its versatility and image quality. As you said, 300mm f/2.8 makes a great compliment to telephoto prime lenses of longer focal lengths (RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM in my case).
Will you be giving the Sigma 500/5.6 a run through?
I have the Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS Lens and can recommend it !
Great review and agree with all you have said. I've had the 300 & both converters for just over a month now. I cant fault it using my A7RV with its cropping in post advantages. I have 200-600 as well and now with the 300 being much lighter, great in lower light and faster handling has virtually made that lens redundant (almost 🤔).
Thanks for sharing
I had the Sony 200-600mm, now I have the excellent Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS
Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob ich für das tolle Review danke sagen sollte, weil ich jetzt das Objektiv kaufen möchte :D. Aber vielen Dank für das tolle Video :)
haha, sorry :D
Hello Jan do you think is it still worth to buy a Sony FE 600mm F4 GM even it's 5 years old now or enjoy the new FE 300mm f2.8 + TC's until 600mm GM II to be anounched :) ? Thank you.
Only get the 600GM if you really need longer reach beyond 600. Otherwise just get the new 300GM n use x2 tc. 600 F5.6 is fine.. 300GM is also lighter, smaller, cheaper than the 600GM. Making it easier to use, hold and travel with. Highly recommand.
I wonder how the IQ of this lens with 2xTC compares with the Nikon 600mm f6.3 without TC
it drops, visible.
Very nice & balanced review! The 300mm 2.8 replaced my 400mm 2.8 because of the weight savings. My main purpose however is wildlife on safari and only occasionally birds.
Thanks for sharing!
Well done! Great video. I would like to ask, have you compared which is faster to focus, the 300GM+2X or the 200-600G?
the 300 for sure
Nice review. I just got this 300mmf2.8 gm an it a no brainer. I love it🔥❤️🔥
Enjoy it
Yeah I find 500mm often to not be enough for birds. For sports 300mm is great but I would prefer a zoom to get wider shots easily. 300 prime just isnt for me but it looks like an excellent lens anyway.
I can recommend the Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS
Thank you for your insightful review. I purchased this lens almost 3 months ago and had been using it with my A7 IV through much of spring until I recently. Prior to that for birds I had been shooting with the Sony 200-600 which I loved but found rather heavy, especially after a full day of shooting. Over time I found I like handheld much better than using a tripod and in most instances like to travel light so I've kind of settled into that. So when this 300 GM was announced I became intrigued at the fact that here was a telephoto PRIME lens. 2.8. That weighed just a bit over 3 lbs! Over 2 lbs lighter than my current setup. Well I ended up getting it and have been very happy with it. That and using it with both Sony TCs. That is what I found so remarkable about how well the IQ was with both TCs. For that alone you are getting a 300 2.8, 420 4.0 and 600 5.6 for around 7K. You can't beat that! I ended up selling my Sony A7 IV after 3 years because I had been thinking about either an A1 or A9 III. Then I thought, should I wait for the A1 Mark II? But after a friend ended up getting an A9 III and I saw what it could do I could not get it off of my mind. I have many friends who shoot with the A1. It is a great camera but I felt funny about getting a camera over 3 years old, so I opted for the A9 III and an A7RV mainly for the updated form factor and AI AF tech. I have ZERO regrets. Even though I have the A7RV which is a great camera in itself with 61 MP of resolution, I have not been able to put down the A9 III and 300 GM combo with the two TCs. I'm very impressed with your kingfisher shot and just had a similar experience a couple of days ago catching a least bittern in flight over water. Like you I was amazed at how quickly the camera focused on the bird and kept focus throughout the flight sequence and ended up with some really good shots! This is a remarkable lens with both TCs and for anyone who likes handheld you can't beat it for the outstanding IQ and how well balanced it feels in your hands. With the A9 III and 300 GM combo (and 2 TCs) you have a great setup IMO for bird photography. My hope is that Sony somehow finds a way to lower the weight and size of their larger primes in their 2nd generation versions. It would be nice to be able to have a 600 that is lighter and smaller.
Great video and this lens seems amazing!
Personally, I love and hate 300mm. I have the Nikon 300mm f/4 PF and think its a wonderful lens. I've taken some of my favourite photos with that lens, its such as an incredible optic but I also find that I struggle more with other 300mm length than any other, its so hard to make good use of it. As you mention, its typically too short for most wildlife situations but on the flip side, its too long for most other genres. I force myself to use it because it has such incredible potential and I want to get better at using it.
That said, I know it is possible to make amazing work with 300 as Tom Mason built his entire career as a wildlife photographer using a 300 2.8. He is using other lenses now but for a long time that was his exclusive lens and he made spectacular work with it.
Those kingfisher images are mindblowing! Never seen anything similar at all before...
Thanks!
Given the ridiculously low weight of the 300 f/2.8 GM, I full expect Sony to be working on a new 400 f/2.8 GM II that reduces weight by at least 500g. If we could get the 400 f/2.8 down to 2.3kg at most, it would become immensely desirable. Sony did what most thought impossible in getting the 300 down to 1.47kg, that basically a 1kg drop on last gen 300 f/2.8's, so I have no doubt same production techniques for 400 and 600 should see further large improvements, and being larger lenses they will tend to have larger absolute weight reductions. In fact, It wouldn't surprise me to see a 400 f/2.8 at 2.1-2.2kg and 600 f/4 at 2.2-2.4kg. 400 is my ideal option for birding. Much more compact than the 600 and would make awesome 560 f/4 and 800 f/5.6. Have the Nikon 400 f/4.5 and 800 f/6.3 and perfect combo, but would be amazing to have 1 lens to do it all. I still the new Nikon 400 f/2.8 with built-in too heavy to hold at eye level for more than a few minutes unlike the 800. 2.4kg is definitely my upper limit, and 200-300g less would be perfect.
Another option that would be amazing, would be a 500 f/4.5 larger brother of the Nikon 400 f/4.5. I'd expect that to only weight 1.6-1.7kg and that gets you a 700 f/6.3 combo.
Hi Jan, this most certainly looks like a nice toy, but from a distance I'd assume the Nikon 600/5.6 PF looks about the same price and weight, and similar bokeh when adding the 2x. But the Nikon wins the small birds because you can still add extenders.
Of course, when money is no concern and someone wants the blazing fast a9iii with a light medium-long lens, then this may a no-brainer.
But I can not afford ditching my Canon gear for what you impressively showcased in this episode.
I do sympathize with the Kookaburra getting too close .. last month we were searching baby foxes near Amsterdam .. and one of them approached me closer than the MFD at 200mm of the 200-800 🙈
I was very close to buy the Sony 300mm 2.8 GM with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, but then the Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS Sports 024 Lens was rumored/announced and I bought the Sigma which is an excellent Lens, very compact, light weight, easy to use and handle, excellent optical image quality, you can go hiking in the nature with it in yours hands for hours without problems and it is under half the price than the Sony 300mm + teleconverters. I can recommend the Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS Sports 024 Lens !
The 300 mm f2.8 appeared to me as extremely versatile. This weekend I have been on a bird photography workshop organized by OM System. They made me the OM-1 MKII (stacked backlit 20 MP Micro Four Third sensor) with 40-150 mm f2.8 zoom (80-300 mm full frame) available. This focal range the compact size, large aperture and IP53 rating (it was raining) was such a fantastic experience that we purchased that combo. This OM-1 combo came for EUR 4000 (recommended sales price, I got good discount from that). The pictures we took, look amazing, especially the birds in flight. I can recommend to attend such bird photography workshops. Your skill determines 90 % of the image quality. The camera of today’s gear the rest. Compact size and low weight definitely will contribute to your ability to follow birds in flight and thus improve your skill level.
I have been using the 300/2.8 + converters for a month or so now, and I couldn’t be more pleased. This is a lens you can carry to the places you actually find the wildlife you want to shoot, and getting there is still fun. It is lighter and sharper than my 200-600, and it is better balanced. Put this together with one of the new 70-200 zooms, and you have it covered at a weight that doesn’t break my (>65 ) back.
Finally, I found a suitable camera insert for the 600 f4 with camera attached. Thank you Jan☕
For what it is, it's probably a spectacular lens, but I feel like it isn't really a great choice for most wildlife photographers. Would be pretty handy for puffins or other birds you can get real close to, though. 😁
Yes, size matters for us ;)
How about the Canon RF 100-300 F2.8 ? I hope you try that out as well and compare it with this one. Cheers!
I don't think Canon or Sony users will switch systems based on the Canon 100-300 vs Sony 300 prime but the obvious differences is the canon is 1Kg heavier and twice the price as the Sony, were as the Canon has the advantage of being a zoom.
@@simonfinnegan7819 I am not suggesting that they change systems based on the conveniences of a single lens. I just wanted to see a comparative review of the pros and cons of these two different but exciting lenses from Jan for educating future potential investors on which lens better serves the purpose of bird and wildlife photography.
@@simonfinnegan7819 The RF 100-300 isn't twice the price though. It's like 50% or so. The price difference is there because it's basically replacing the 70-200. If you add the release price of the original EF 300 2.8 is ii and the rf 70-200 you get the price of the RF 100-300.
@@kpopfanphotos Here in the UK the canon is £11,499 while the Sony is £5,799 so here it is twice the price and just for the record the Sony 70-200 is £2,479
Why not just get the Sony 400mm f2.8?
400 F2.8…. For just 100mm more you want to pay double the price? And double the weight and alot bigger in size lens? Also the 400 wont take tc better than the 300GM.
The focus distance is less than half of the 600 f4 though which is awesome!
For me it's a little too short on the A1. Instead the 300/2.8 with the 1.4TC (420/f4) i can also use my "old" 100-400/5.6 GM without the TC. It's also a small, lightweight an very sharp lens with a great flexibility. With the 1,4TC i got 560/8 with also a very good sharpness and speed. I sold my 200-600 and my 600/4 and i hope Sony will develop an lightweight 500/4 with the performance of the 300/2.8 in the future (1,8 to 2,0 Kg ?), a new 100-400 Mark II (like the 70-200 II with an internal zoom) or the patented 150-400/4. P.S. -> Your channel is great !! Best wishes from Germany !!
I’’m glad the 100-400 worked well for you with a converter. Mine didn’t perform nearly as well as this 300. Even at 1.4x, (420mm) I have a stop more speed and (for me) than I got from the 100-400 without a converter and AF that is at least as good. My 100-400 didn’t perform with the 1.4x as well as I wanted at longer than about 500mm.
Very useful video! That lens sounds like a dream, lightweight and with great low light performance and compatibility with teleconverters. Do you know if the older Canon/Nikon 300mm 2.8 lenses have equally good performance?
They're good, but I don't believe at this level, in terms of AF with a 2x. The Canon 100-300 seems to benefit from stopping down with a 2x, which then makes it more tricky to get the fast shutter speeds at F8. I have not used that lens, tho, so this is just what friends have told me
Just got this lens and am really enjoying having what is effectively 3 lenses in one - I have the flexiblity of the different lengths while enjoying the sharpness of the prime lens and great AF. I've found uses with wildlife for all three (300mm 2.8 bare and then adding both TCs which I had anyway in turn) and it's such fun to use. Worth saving for given how good it is with the TCs and gives you three options. I enjoyed the 200-600mm immensely and it's a great lens but this is lighter and brighter.
I couldn't carry, hand hold or more importantly afford the bigger primes so this has offered a fantastic upgrade to my glass and it'll be my one and done for now.
Even IF money is no issue. I dontwant to and I cant handhold a 3kg lens whole day. To be honest. Also the 400 and 600 is huge in size. Making it troublesome to use in the field and transport it aroud eg aeroplane or etc.
I hope the GM ii of those lenses will be able to shave off some weight and size. Then it will be awesome!
Hi Jan, I was waiting for this review. I'm definitely going to buy this lens and replace my Sigma Sport 150-600. I seek for slightly better aperture and lower weight as I only shoot handheld. Thanks for the review it was really very helpful. PS. I love your azure kingfisher photos. Great job as always. 🎉
Great to hear, cheers
Excellent and detailed review, thank you. I'm heavily invested in Canon gear, but if I was starting over, I'd definitely be tempted to give the new Sony kit a try. BTW, a data point on availability of the Canon 200-800mm... I ordered one at the beginning of February (UK), and it arrived on Friday. It's hardly been out of my hands since 🙂
Awesome!
Your review really emphasizes that for bird and wildlife photographers autofocus speed, accuracy, and tracking, fast frame rates, high resolution sensors, IBIS and optical image stabilization, bright prime lenses, and excellent technique are the magic technical ingredients for capturing superb action images.
that was quite the sentence, but it's true :D
Great review Jan, I've personally been looking for lightweight lens because hand holding the 200-600mm has been hurting my back. The 2x converter adds additional weight and cost that make it hard to justify.
The Sigma 500mm seems like a good option because of it's even smaller size and weight. The lens has about 5 negatives over my 200-600mm, but I would be willing to sacrifice a few things for the weight.
Between 300 mm GM with x2.0 TC is about MAYBE 400-500 grams of difference from 200-600 if you include tripod hood and lens hood + TC weight, so that's unworthy, image quality with x2.0 TC and contrast drops down, and is unworth this price after that. There's not THAT MUCH of the difference between these two lenses (300 mm + x2.0 tc VS 200-600 at 600 mm). 500 mm f5.6 is a sweet spot.
@@pentagramyt417 I agree. The lens would make a good 420mm F4 with the 1.4x though, it would make a great birds in flight lens and useful in low light. I just wouldn't want to be swapping teleconverters all the time.
I done some tests with my 200-600mm over the weekend and found i'm at 600mm permanently but many times i'm almost framing the shot in camera, if I had a fixed focal length, 500mm would be a sweet spot allowing me to crop to reframe or keep the shot wider to show some environment.
@@pentagramyt417 I'll also add that I'm only framing shots at 600mm in situations where a lightweight lens is justified, like when I'm being stealthy on hikes. Most other situations 600mm is never enough haha
@@KurtisPape Excatly, and it's way easier to get the shot done on zoom lens, it's heavy, but with monopod it makes it good on every shutterspeed though. Of course we can't shoot handheld 1/30 on this lens as there is lack of good stabilization in sony. 500 mm sigma is great option for lightweight kit, and with camera like A7-IV, A7Rx it can be even better for later cropping situations. For me 600 mm is usually not enough, I'd get 800 mm f6.3 whenever possible in sony kit :P
Would you please review the canon 100-300 2.8 with extenders.
He already has a review of the canon rf 100-300 2.8 and talking about using it with teleconverters
Great review! What do you think about using this lens with both 2x and 1.4 TCs for 840 mm f8? I am currently using 200-600 mm with a1, but more often than not also with 1.4 TC. I am wondering if 300 mm with 2 TCs stacked could be a better option.
Can you stack the Sony TCs? I don’t think you can
@@jan_wegener I never tried, but I heard people do it)
@@jan_wegener You are right, they are not supposed to be stacked. People used an extension tube to do that, not really a proper way and you lose infinity focus.
What's not to like? Its not a 100-300 f2.8 (or a 180-400 f4). Between this and Canon's 100-300 f2.8 zoom, there is no way you are picking the Sony lens. Also, 300mm is not a wildlife or most outdoor sports lens, and for indoor sports being locked at 300mm is a huge drawback. I honestly don't know who this lens is for. This is a razor thin use case lens. You can tell yourself that, well, I can just swap in and out TC's and various camera bodies all day and make this lens more than what it is. Good luck with that.
Man you are comparing apples with potatoes. First of all: weight. 100-300 2,65kg, with 2x 3kg! Sony 300 1,45kg and 1,65kg with 2x tc! That’s half the weight. Second, the Canon is also double the price! Here in Europe 100-300 is priced over 12,500 euro; Sony’s 6,200 euro. You really cannot compare this two options. Third factor, for me, it’s Canon AF, just sold R5, R7 and 100-500 (I’m still crying for this masterpiece lens) because it’s not at Sony’s level for raptors in flight (here in Italy animals are not confident like Australia, North America and north Europe itself). I’m not talking about shed/carnage, I’m talking about serious bif. I’ve tried my friend’s A1 and 300 2.8 with 2x all the time and I completely fell in love. It’s a 600 5,6, that’s it. And it costs like a Nikon pf 600 6.3, but at better quality. Mind blowing. With A1 in crop mode you have a 900mm zoom with a button with 21 stunning mpx. Or 300-450mm sort of zoom without tc, or 420-630mm with 1,4x. Come one, what are we talking about? This lens is so sharp it doesn’t know the difference between tcs and no tcs.
Modern zoom made people think with fixed lenses you sì an shoot no more. Again, you’re comparing a fixed prime razor sharp lens with a zoom that costs double the price at also double the weight.
@@ph_anto It's not double the price in the US. It's $6000 vs $9500 for just the lens. Anyone who is able/willing to buy a $6000 lens (not to mention also an A1 and A9III as suggested in this video for $12500 combined cost, no to mention the additional costs of TC's, memory cards, and accessories) is also able/willing to buy a $9500 lens, so that is largely a moot point. In any case, the Canon R5/100-300 f2.8 is actually $100 cheaper than the Sony A1/300 f2.8. Yes, cheaper. You may not realize this, but the R5 can also shoot in crop mode. Yup, that is also true. So all that zoom math you did also applies to the Canon in addition to its physical zoom capability.
Dream on that the A1/300 f2.8 with the 2x TC is better than the Z8/600 PF combo at 600mm regardless of price. That's a win for Nikon all day. Your claim that "it costs like a Nikon PF 600" is straight up false. The A1/300 f2.8 plus a 2x TC to get to 600mm is $13050 in the US. The Z8/600 PF is $7800. For $750 more, you get the Nikon Z8, 600 PF, and the 800 PF, and Sony has nothing that can even remotely compete with that trio.
If you think Sony is far ahead in AF over Canon's and Nikon's top offerings, all that really shows is that you don't know what you are talking about. These are all on par now for wildlife and sports action. Yes, each of them have quirks. Sony does, Canon does, and Nikon does. None of them are 100% perfect, but all are well beyond what is needed. I have not shot with the A9III yet, so I cannot opine on that one. I have shot plenty on the R5, A1 and Z8/Z9. For wildlife and sports action stills, they are on par with each other. Nikon does beat Canon and Sony in wildlife and sports action video AF by a wide margin last I compared. The real difference maker right now in wildlife and sports action is the lenses, and Sony is dead last in wildlife and sports action lenses. This E 300 f2.8 does nothing to change that. Sony desperately needs to release mid-range (cost) 400mm+ primes/zooms, new 400/600mm pro lenses, and an 800mm mid-range/pro lens. Sony is far behind in the 400mm+ game and this is an irrefutable fact.
@@KungPowEnterFist First of all, spare me that arrogant tone. I approached to you with respect, and so I expect the same, like a civil dialogue. If you keep talking like this, the discussion is over for me no matter what you say.
Let's follow an order:
- Price. I'm European, the largest pro-capite market, so I consider European prices. I don't care about US prices. Also, these are Japanese product. And we are on an Australian channel. Another time americans think they only exist in this whole world (I really hope you're not). We are 800 million in Europe, US less than 350. Anyway, I don't agree with you with this unfounded theory in which a person able to spend 6k would easily spend 12k (or even 9,5k). Have you ever heard such thing as budget? According to your fallacious reasoning, if someone is willing to spend 10, then let's double it! 20k without blinking an eye. If you can double 6 to 12, than 10 to 20 is like drinking a glass of water. Come on, even you are not drinking that. Having an amount of money does not have to mean to spend them without criteria.
- Camera+Lens. You keep calculating lenses prices always with camera. Have you considered someone already has the camera? If I am a Z8 user, at the moment of purchase, I have to pay 6,7k euros for 600 Pf. If I am a A1 user, I have to pay 6,2k for 300 GM + 600e for 2x TC. And you will still have a f6.3 PF VS f5.6 ED lens. Are we still arguing about this nonsense? You clearly do not know what a diffractive optic means (Fresnel, PF, in Nikon product). Of course is better a classic optic than a diffrattive one. Sharpness and contrast will easily be sacrificed in too many situations. Go check them and ask yourself why sport professionists don't use them.
Not to mention your so beloved Canon. Which prime wildlife lens for mirroless will you buy at that price?
- Weight. I see you took it out with my price math, but suspiciously left out my weight calculation. Maybe because it was incontrovertible? Or do you sincerely believe that literally half the weight does not play a central role in a purchase decision? Not everyone is capable of using 3kg for wildlife. I am, but I can assure you all my certainties crushed against 1.4kg. Feather weight.
- Stacked. I see how easily you accused me to don't know what I was talking about (a stranger to you, kudos for respecting the interlocutor) when I praised Sony's AF. I do not know nothing for saying Sony has a better AF than Canon (I had R5 and A1 at the same time), but you comparing a non stacked camera with a stacked one couldn't be accused of the same? OK, mine is an opinion, based on my direct experience side by side on the filed, but ok, only my opinion. Stacked VS cmos traditional sensor is simply math. Calculation per second. A1 does 250 operations per second, R5 60. You hate A1? Use Z8 and R3 for this time. I'm sorry, but as shown before with diffractive optics, I detect some serious basic gaps in photography and math, here.
- Sony's leading role. Yes, I declare it again: Canon and Nikon haven't reached Sony, yet. Just because you haven't noticed (or haven't practised a genre in which you can notice) it doesn't mean Sony doesn't have better AF. For many reasons. 1. Sony sold to Nikon Z8/9 stacked sensor. Why on earth a larger competitor could ever sell to a smaller one the same technology to beat em? Do you really think a multinational company is so self destructive? AF points are immersed in the sensor, the AF capacity is strictly related to the sensor. 2. Canon does not have a big mpxl stacked body yet. Rumors about R1 and R5II are really depressing. I have never felt this disappoint between Canon users (I saw falter even the strongest fanboys). 3. Sony and Canon don't have Nikon tele lineup. Sony for technology leading; Canon for marketshare leading. Nikon, that have to buy sensor and doesn't lead the market, must convince new customers in one way: it chose a larger tele lineup. And praise to Nikon, all of that teles and a Z8 so, relatively, cheap, that's a market move!
- Sony's tele lack. Yes, again, this 300 GM changes perspective on Sony's lineup. Yes, an 800mm would be nice (not for my photography), but you forgot Sigma's 500mm f5.6. With just a 300mm stunningly 1,4x and 2x convertible, Sony's covered 100-300, 400 4.5 and 600pf areas.
In conclusion, I now doubt your experience. I wonder which genre you do practise. Wildlife and sport is a really vague answer. For sport you could mean basketball, which is indoor, controlled light, with "slow" near and well contrasted subjects, such as the majority of sports, even outdoor. Try with F1 300km/h cars, that's a difficult proof for AF, and you have to shoot stacked for that. Ask pros.
Then, for wildlife you could mean being hide in a shed waiting for birds eating on your feeder/carnage, I don't know you've been vague. Maybe shooting birds at the swamp. Or big fulfilling-frame mammals. Those are not difficult proof for me. So if you cannot tell the differences I see, I'm glad you don't need that. It's not a fault: just different necessities.
Camera average performances have never been so high. I can assure you Sony's leading role is not only good news for us. Competition is always the best choice. But deny the evidence is always wrong as well. Above you can read again the reasons why.
And if you're still wondering who can be that crazy to buy a 300gm+2x for high speed flying raptors, here I am. Just like 2 friends of mine and other 3 photography acquaintances.
Cheers.
For sports the zoom has an advantage, for many other things where you are at or above 300mm this lens has an edge due to size and weight
@@ph_anto @phanto21 Spare you the arrogant tone? Then maybe you should not have given it to start with. Typical fanboyism. Whatever you have is the best and everything else is junk. It is obvious you really hate being wrong, even when presented with irrefutable facts that contradict your opinion. Honestly, you can believe whatever you want. I think all the big three have their pro's and con's, strengths and weaknesses, and there are plenty of intangible reasons that require no rhyme or reason as to why you might want to go with brand A or B or whatever.
Of course the camera matters. You have to buy a camera body to use the lenses. You also have to buy memory cards, accessories, editing software, a computer, etc. It is a perfectly valid point that someone who is already spending $20k+ on everything else (including other lenses) is just not going to be deterred by one lens costing $3500 more than another when you are trying to be at that level. But if you want to do the math, of course the cost of the camera body comes into play. In this case, the Sony A1 and A9III are far more expensive than the R5 and Z8. They are also more expensive than the Z9 and R3, and then you also add the cost of grip and second battery for the A1 and A9III which makes them even more expensive. You may chose to ignore these facts, but they are facts regardless of what you want to believe.
Regarding your comments on Nikon Z 600/800 PF's, clearly you have not used them. These are not budget kit lenses. The only lens sharper of any system, with or without TC's, at 800mm plus than the Z 800 PF is the F 800 f5.6 FL ED VR, though the Z 800 PF is better in virtually every other way. Nothing in any systems current mount is better at 800mm+ than the Z 800 PF, including Sony/Canon/Nikon's pro level lenes (i.e., 400/600 f2.8/f4) with internal/external TC's. Canon's RF 800 f5.6 is essentially the same optically as the EF 800 f5.6 only with improved AF, VR and weight savings. It provides slightly worse sharpness/IQ than the Z 800 PF, and, therefore, it currently sits in third behind both Nikon 800mm options. Sony does not have an 800mm lens. Imagine how ignorant one sounds to claim Sony is the wildlife, birds/BIF, outdoor sports action leader when they do not have an 800mm option. Things only get worse for Sony when you talk about the 400/600 pro level lenses, as Nikon is clearly far ahead here. Built in TC, brother. Built in TC. Canon and Sony have nothing that competes against the Z 600 PF, and it is almost as sharp as the current best 600mm pro lens, the Z 600 f4 TC, at least in the center. Wicked fast/accurate AF, exceptional VR, small, light. You are seriously trying to claim the E 300 f2.8 with a 2x TC (mind you, it's a Sony TC) competes with that? Good luck on that one, bro.
Nikon owns the 400mm+ pro and semi-pro lens market right now. Canon has the edge in the 400mm+ budget lens market. The RF 100-400, while not as good as Sony's or Nikon's 100-400, is very inexpensive, small, and light, while providing very decent images. I don't think we need to say much on the RF 100-500. I think the RF 200-800 is poopy but interesting. Then they have the 600/800 f11's, which I also think are poopy but birdwatches seem to like them. Where is Sony in all this? Missing a bunch of lenses, obviously, and not one that they do have is the best at its formula. It's not even a discussion. And of course, Canon and Nikon can bring in all their EF/F options along with plenty of third party offerings that can be adapted. Plenty of those older lenses are still perfectly viable options today. F 300 PF, F 500 PF, and F 500 f4 FL ED VR, to name a few from Nikon. Canon also has plenty still viable EF options via the adapter. What good is the A1 and A9III at wildlife, birds/BIF's, and outdoor sports action, when you have such few super tele options and what they do have is mostly last place stuff. Oh, sorry, let's not leave out the Sigma 500 f5.6 that will only work with Sigma's literally last place TC's.
Conclusion, buy whatever you like. The reality is that at no point did Sony ever lead the wildlife, bird/BIF, and outdoor sports action segments. They also never led the captive animal/indoor sports action segments. It's not the bodies holding them back. It's the lenses. They are seriously behind Canon and Nikon in all the applicable lenses (and TC's) for these segments. It's not even close. The E 300 f2.8 does nothing to change that calculus. That does not mean it's a terrible lens or anything like that. It is obviously I am out there shooting wildlife, birds/BIF's, and outdoor sports action a lot more than you, and I have used a lot more of this gear than you. That does not mean I am a better photographer or videographer than you, so stop with the hate. When it comes to the gear, however, it is what it is. Nikon is far ahead right now in these segments. Canon is second. Sony is a distant third. Hopefully, Sony will release 4-5 400mm+ lenses soon, and at least some of those will be best in formula and Sony gets back in the discussion. The E 800mm lens has been rumored for at least 5 years and here we are still with no 800mm offering. But that's not the only huge hole in the lineup. It's ridiculous.
Excellent Jan!
There is no reason to test that out on A9 III / A1 for average customer, who can afford (if at all SOMEDAY EVER) one of that. Even professionaly.
Please test this lens on A6700 / A7-IV as for speed with x2.0 TC and sharpness test, for wider base of customers.
To understand what a lens truly can do, I like to test it with the best available cameras.
The kingfishers for instance you couldn’t do with another camera. So in a way I’d be doing the lens a disservice.
It will be just as good with other cameras but more limited by their AF capabilities and fps
@@jan_wegener That's the clue, sorry if you did not understand, but take those two cameras aside, and put it on A7-IV and recommend it the same way for like A73 or A7IV or any other cameras with the same approach that it's fantastic lens.. Sure it is, but only on the top cameras, and there could be no difference in AF speed for anything below a1/a9 group of cameras. The x2.0 TC might suffocate autofocus speed below A1/A9III/A9II
@@pentagramyt417 it will be just as excellent on the A7 IV, but it would be much harder to photograph fast action like the kingfisher.
It's great, that Jan shows the capability of this lens together with the best camera available. Jan is one of the view reviewers, who is able to push the gear to its limits. It is then easy to estimate the performance of other bodies considering their limitations. Also. anybody who will be buying this lens, most likely can also afford the matching camera.
@@renestaempfli1071 _It is then easy to estimate the performance of other bodies considering their limitations._ It's easy to estimate performance on A1/A9 cameras if you can read specifications carefully, and how many AF calculations which camera does. Most of the consumers can hope for having any of these two, and even if they can afford it, they have no possibility to check how it can work or can have false point of view, because a1 is not a7iv or a6700. It's VERY important to test that on the slower bodies. It won't be problem to buy one thing by one, why would anyone have to buy two things at once? You can buy one now, one in a few years later. You need to know what you are buying and when and what is more needed. It's like saying if you can afford Porsche you can buy two Houses. Your bank account my be high, doesn't mean you can afford everything...
Already watching 😂🙏
nice! :D
Jan Sony is falling into the same trap like Canon , they simply don't have a lens availability like what Nikon has I just cannot understand Sony and Canon why they will not come up with good Bird lense's .
Like a 600pf?
@@jan_wegener Jan Not just the 600 PF how about the 800 PF and how about the old Nikon F model the 500 5.6 just look look at how ahead Nikon is miles ahead compared to Sony and Canon in the lens department , tell me if I'm wrong .
Yes Nikon have some excellent long compact, light weight Lenses, like 400mm 4.5, 500mm 5.6, 600mm 6.3 and 800mm 6.3, but you can get the excellent Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN OS which I have and can recommend.
@@cameraprepper7938 Cameraprepper , That Sigma 500 F5.6 is the lens I would take as a number one choice , but you can guess what mount they don't make it in ( in the Canon RF mount ) and yes that would be my first choice to buy .
@@garymeredith2441 I abandoned Canon five years ago, today I am happy I did.