We usually hear when talking about big glass "well, there's no way around physics". Well, it seems like Sony really did find a way around! The new generation of lenses is impressively compact and light.
Remains to be seen really. The usual sacrifice for using smaller elements anywhere in the optical chain is vignetting performance and PetaPixel didn't test for this. Dustin Abbott will test that though.
@@JMurph2015 seen a couple other reviews, doesn't appear to have a vignetting issue. Gerald Undone covered it in his review if you want to look for yourself. It's really quite impressive.
A 300mm lens and an extension tube, make for some excellent macro capabilities, I use that a lot when up in the Alpine Meadows, where you are not allowed off the trail, because if you step on a flower it takes 10+ years to grow back again.
@@wingcreator 200-600mm is f/5.6-6.3. They're comparing both lenses at 600mm so the G lens would require no adapter and would be at 6.3 compared to the GM at 5.6.
IMHO, the 200-600 is very usable and sharp, and zoom is convenient in the field. But the 300GM with either converter 1.4x at f4, or the 2x at f5.6 works brilliantly. Light and hand hold able it is dream come true - AF is quick and accurate.Obviously ideal for long trips where weight and space is a factor. For me, worth every dollar! Barry, Australia.
I am a wildlife photographer, and I just ordered my 300mm. It will be a good addition to my 600mm 4.0. Yes I am one of thoses guys that carries around the big gun all day long, and I just love it, also with the 1.4 TC. I could also wait for the 400mm to get cheaper used, but I think that the 300 is better for me, as I would use it mostely in hides, where even the 400 might be too much as well as for lager mammals. And the 300 is light for traveling fitting in one bag with 600 and second back-up body.
I have the Sony 600/4 but if traveling long distance I'd prefer this 300 with TC's. I took a 300 to Africa and Costa Rica and would do the same again, so this 300/2.8 is on my dream list.
Looks like a COOL light weight lens...but being retired and 70 yrs young...I think I will just use M43 gear when I need light weight f2.8 glass... (Olympus 40-150/2.8 pro. MC14 tx) I am not a bird shooter...I am retired living in Bangkok. I use EOS RF and EF glass on a pair of RP bodies...For M43 its a pair of Lumix GX9 bodies and a mix of Olympus and Pan Leica glass...Cheers
À choisir entre un : - Canon R3, objectif 100-300 ou - Sony A7rV 300 Mmm Gm plus un A7rV 70-200. - Sony A7rV 400 mm gm Quelle configuration choisir entre ces deux là ?? Pour du sportif f( football )
What??? "Noct" and "Plena" aren't standard terms used in the context of photography lenses. Are you referring to specific lens models or lines? This isn't common terminology to me and these terms don't appear to relate to optical characteristics or weight measurements.
Awesome. What a cool lens. Priced where the DSLR versions were back in their day so it's really a decent deal. I wonder if the Nikon and Canon 1X0-300 f/2.8 zooms (and that older Sigma zoom!) make more sense for the likely use cases like sports, however. Still, I'm glad it exists!
Sony should have made it a 100/120 - 300 2.8 zoom instead of 300 fix 2.8. Anyway, at this weight as the old 70200gm v1, it will be OK if one has the 70200gm2. So carrying a 70200GM2 + 300GM is about the same weight as Canon RF 100-300mm which is not as flexible but at least will cover that ranges.
Nikon has the 400 f4.5 that is 220g lighter and does not need a teleconverter to get to 400mm and costs half as much. Yes this is half the weight of the Nikon and Canon's 300mm f2.8 but they are old technology. For wildlife, the difference between 200 and 300mm is seldom enough to justify a new lens. We will normally want 400mm+. The lens is still extraordinary.
A great lens I have just sold mine as it happens. Certainly a great option. The 300GM f2.8 is on another level though, a fixed focal length is key for ultimate quality. @@joeysnacht
Seems like Sony keeps releasing fantastic fast lenses, whereas Canon keeps releases slightly slow, slightly longer focal length, kind of weird lenses... or just welding teleconverters onto old lenses. As a Canon shooter, I'm pretty envious of the Sony lenses.
You must be on Krack naruto san. Canon has a far superior 100-300mm F2.8 Sony is behind at this point even Nikkor lens' are far superior than what sony has. Come out from under the rock ... lol
Is the way Chris pronounces "detent" some kind of ongoing joke? He pronounces "detent" as "detente", which are two words with very different meanings...
I mean i kinda get saying this is the only 300 2.8 but acting like the 100-300 doesnt even exist seems a bit weird. A smaller and lighter lens is nice but really the 100-300 replaces the 300 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 where this lens youd need the 70-200 also which gets rid of weight, size, and cost savings. you also just dont have 200-300 range in exchange for 30mm on wide end
70200GM2 + 300GM is 120g lighter than RF 100-300. Only thing is it is less flexible but on the other hand 300mm working alone is around 860g lighter than RF 100-300 (weight does matter unless one is very fit or young. 300GM is quite a bit cheaper than RF 100-300.
@@wingcreator that's not a lot of weight savings at all. The 300 is cheaper but the 300 and 70-200 aren't really cheaper. I'm sure some people wouldn't need both and are happy with just 300 but I know a lot of sports photographers would still need a 70-200
If the lense is a 300mm at close focus it's amazing. It's twice as heavy as the Nikon 300mm f4.0 pf, 220g heavier than the Nikon 400mm f4.5 (clearly with the teleconverter the Sony is even heavier but a little bit faster f4.5 vs f4.0), and half the weight of the old technology 300mm f2.8 from Nikon and Canon. If you need 400mm clearly the Nikon is a far superior option, significantly lighter and less than half the price.
In Russia , we have neural networks that translate English - language UA-cam videos to us right on the fly . Dubbed translation, male and female voices. Do you have something like that there? Watch the video from Russia?
It's driving me crazy that Sony is making such great photography gear, because I've been boycotting Sony products for 19 years now and have no intention to cave in now. Sony was caught including auto-installing rootkit style malware on their music CDs and refused to apologize or stop.
Great video... but I'm getting the Canon 100-300mm 2.8... it will replace my 70-200F2.8 and my 200mm F2.0. Canon's lens is as sharp as the prime and will be cheaper than with 2 additional lens that i don;t need. sony..Lightest lens? LOL still over 3lbs. Canon's 100-300mm F2.8 will be far more versatile and useful. sony's at $6,000? spend a bit more and get the Canon 100-300mm no brainer.
Definitely, my favourite 70200GM2 is about the same weight as RF70200 2.8 (but Canon does not design it to use 1.4/2.0x - first in this class which has a crippling effect). 14 1.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.4 (not yet appeared in N/C mirrorless), 50 1.2 GM are lighter and smaller than N/C version.
The GM's tend to be smaller and lighter, but they tend to sacrifice IQ for it when compared to similarly priced competition. Everything has a tradeoff.
@@wingcreatorthe RF70-200 f/2.8 can't use a teleconverter because Canon went all in on putting the rear element right up against the mount flange. This allows the lens to be more compact than comparable lenses, but at the expense of being able to use teleconverters.
@@itsacookie1not really. More like software corrected. That why Sony introduced something like focus breathing compensation. Sony lens design language is a balance between size/weight/software correction vs optically perfect
I appreciate you comparing the Fuji 200mm. I’m a Fuji guy who’s looking to invest in sports photography gear. The 200 is on my shopping list. Do you think the Sony 300 is worth the $6k? Especially now that you can get the Fuji 200 for $4,500.
I have owned the Fuji f2 200mm for a few years, and it is a joy to shoot. I got lucky finding an amazing quality one used. Its equivalent focal length with the adapter is 427mm. It also puts you at 2.8. For wildlife it does feel like it comes up a little short compared to the 100-400, but on cloudy days or lower light scenarios you can still shoot. However, its bigger and heavier. I dont have a monopod, but I really want one for this lens if you are going to be holding it for more than 15 minutes. I am really shocked with what Sony could accomplish here.
Quick correction, Canon does have a RF 300 2.8 (100-300 to be exact), but the size and weight are in another category.... along with its price, $10,000.
@@mikejackson9585Of course it would make sense! Even if you have a 100-300/2.8 zoom, the prime will always be lighter, more compact and optically superior over the other. Not to mention there’s the price difference. Just marking checkboxes isn’t all there is to a lens.
@@Barjavel88 Canon avoids to make "me-too-lenses" for the RF mount. - the 70-200s are by far more compact than the competition - the 135 solely offers IS - the 100-400 is a 100-500 - the 300 2.8 prime is the only 2.8 zoom in the 300mm class - the internal zooming 70-200ish will be in the Z-line as the 24-105 2.8 is. I doubt Canon even thinking about a 300 2.8 prime. But they will make another (faster) tele zoom beyond 300mm.
@@taylorhickman84me too, but that would have added a little extra weight and length on the back end, and frankly I think this lens was too far along in development to tack that on to the back. I would love to see in another couple years a generation 2 version of all of Sony's telephoto lenses with built-in teleconverters.. that really is a game changer and something that they should strive for in the future.
This is tempting. I still want them to update the 85mm G-Master f/1.4 to f/1.2 and better resolution and sharpness… I currently have the Sigma DGDN and it is amazing, has better autofocus and is noticeably sharpner than the current G-Master equivalent, but having a Sony lens would allow me to take advantage of the full suite of features.
Footage from the G9 II looking good - what lenses do you use Jordan, guessing the PanaLeica 1.7 zoom duo? Also, on the subject of m43, Panasonic/OM should be looking very carefully at this lens. It shows what's possible in terms of size/weight for bright long glass.
As a sony owner i want the Canon 100-300mm F2.8 you kray kray ... Just watched Gerald's video as well and he had significant flare and glare issues with his sony lens pointed into the sun
This is that rare lens that is still super sharp with a 2x teleconverter attached. So if you own both TCs you get a 300 2.8, 420 F4 and 600 5.6. Versatile, light, fast AF and sharp!!
But how can this be possible?!?! The e-mount is so small you couldn't possible have small, light, super high quality full frame glass for the e-mount. ;)
Exactly, it doesn't need to be bigger than the sensor. SONY usually offers the smallest, lightest, sharpest and fastest focusing lenses.. It helps that they seem to have the best people working on the designs.
You know it bugs me that you guys have kept up with the 'Noct' measurements. I get the joke but its redundant. The problem is your measuring it against something that nobody has any frame of reference for. We don't own Noct's. What we do own is standard 24-70mm f2.8. Imagine using that as your standards of measurements? Maybe your reviewing a m43 12-35mm, and you can then say something like, "Its half a _________." It gives us something we can understand and compare too. Mind you, finding a cleaver name to fill in the space would be important. It does not have to be the 24-70mm f2.8. But I think it would have to be a FF lens so we have a 'standard' to compare all lens to like how we convert sensors for Full Frame Equivalence.
@4:46 your testing chart is not good. I don't see difference. But christopher frost lens testing chart .my god its so beautiful and I always can see clearly
This will be a terrific lens that few will buy as most will choose to get to ~300mm (280mm) with a 1.4 TC on their 70-200mm and at 1/3 the price and the same weight. Sure this will be at f/4 but with more flexibility. Nikon users are lucky to already have the 300mm PF f/4 at 1/3 the price and weight. Canon users, of course, can always get to 300mm on their 200-800mm at some un-Godly aperture and at 1/3 the price but a whole bunch more weight.
note that tc introduces image degradation as well so much so that sometimes cropping is better if its only for social media use etc. but at 6000usd jeez that puts it out of range for the vast majority of photographers. its a super specialised lens and even if its compact, you'll probably end up having to carry additional lenses if out on a field trip. still, id rather sony keep innovating.
It has been demonstrated over and over that the Nikon Z 1.4 TC impacts its z 70-200mm 2.8 to a virtually indistinguishable degree. I am so sorry that you feel that such is not true with Sony.
@@lcador9Im not really aligned with any brand lol I find it childish. Don't fall for the troll comments either. Lastly, all TC do give some drop in sharpness amongst other things. It's physics. Having said that, yea the Nikon z TC and Nikon glass continues to be top notch.
Just got one and it's A-mazing! Exceeds expectation and it's truly handhold-able. Blown away by the quality. Yes, it's expensive and still hurts the wallet but the weight alone (or lack of) will having me using this far more than just dedicated shoots for sports and wildlife.
100-300 zoom is much better than just 300mm prime. I have nice Sigma 100-300/4 EX DG for my Pentax. What a beast. High resolution even wide open, peaks at F5 and you'll barely notice any image improvement with stopping it down more unless you need more DOF. AF although driven by camera motor is very fast and accurate. Stabilisation provided by IBIS. Great telephoto and that range is also fine. Sig120-300/2.8 or RF100-300/2.8 must be even better.
The need of a 300 2.8 is very limited in our times: - those 100-400 e.a. take all the amateur needs in this focal length and are by far better in close focussing - the Pros are by far better off with the flexibility of a 100-300 2.0 for sports, events, ... - wildlife in most places need more than 300 mm reach - too long for portrait and fashion I do nor expect Canon to launch a 300 2.8 any time soon - and Nikon will launch another three lenses in the range of 400-800mm to plaster every thinkable need in wildlife and things.
Excellent fast-paced review, and props for fitting in the word "polygonal".
Damn, just announced today by Sony. You're on top of it.
We usually hear when talking about big glass "well, there's no way around physics". Well, it seems like Sony really did find a way around! The new generation of lenses is impressively compact and light.
Remains to be seen really. The usual sacrifice for using smaller elements anywhere in the optical chain is vignetting performance and PetaPixel didn't test for this. Dustin Abbott will test that though.
@@JMurph2015 seen a couple other reviews, doesn't appear to have a vignetting issue. Gerald Undone covered it in his review if you want to look for yourself. It's really quite impressive.
@@JMurph2015 and don't forget Christopher Frost
A 300mm lens and an extension tube, make for some excellent macro capabilities, I use that a lot when up in the Alpine Meadows, where you are not allowed off the trail, because if you step on a flower it takes 10+ years to grow back again.
Of course, I can't afford this lens. But I love watching this video.
I'd love to see how this compares to Sony's 200-600 at 600mm when given the 2x converter
Aperture alone is no comparison f5.6 GM / f 12.6 G. I am very much sure the AF and quality will be better on 300mm GM + 2x.
@@wingcreator 200-600mm is f/5.6-6.3. They're comparing both lenses at 600mm so the G lens would require no adapter and would be at 6.3 compared to the GM at 5.6.
IMHO, the 200-600 is very usable and sharp, and zoom is convenient in the field. But the 300GM with either converter 1.4x at f4, or the 2x at f5.6 works brilliantly. Light and hand hold able it is dream come true - AF is quick and accurate.Obviously ideal for long trips where weight and space is a factor. For me, worth every dollar! Barry, Australia.
Impressive. If I were working on sports like F1 or the Olympics, this lens would be on my backpack. Save money and my back on travel.
I am a wildlife photographer, and I just ordered my 300mm. It will be a good addition to my 600mm 4.0. Yes I am one of thoses guys that carries around the big gun all day long, and I just love it, also with the 1.4 TC. I could also wait for the 400mm to get cheaper used, but I think that the 300 is better for me, as I would use it mostely in hides, where even the 400 might be too much as well as for lager mammals. And the 300 is light for traveling fitting in one bag with 600 and second back-up body.
I absolutely love the weight measurment based on Plena and Noct. Keep it up.
Impressive that they managed to make such a compact lens given the maximum aperture. I'd love to see the same philosophy applied to a 300mm f/4 lens!
Like Nikon PF 300 f4 and 500 f5.6 or Canon 400 f4 DO II.
@@wingcreator cool
I have the Sony 600/4 but if traveling long distance I'd prefer this 300 with TC's. I took a 300 to Africa and Costa Rica and would do the same again, so this 300/2.8 is on my dream list.
For the low low price of just 12k US, you can have this Lens and the New Sony A9III
I can see the 300mm GM in my future. But, I would also be ok with a 300mm G f4.
Looks like a COOL light weight lens...but being retired and 70 yrs young...I think I will just use M43 gear when I need light weight f2.8 glass... (Olympus 40-150/2.8 pro. MC14 tx)
I am not a bird shooter...I am retired living in Bangkok. I use EOS RF and EF glass on a pair of RP bodies...For M43 its a pair of Lumix GX9 bodies and a mix of Olympus and Pan Leica glass...Cheers
A 300mm f/2.8 which is lighter than a 58mm f/0.95 ❤
WOW Z 58mm 0.95 is 2000g. Also RF 24-105 2.8Z is 1300g (which is close to 300GM 1470g).
great as usual guys, what bag were you carrying looks like comfortable
1:46 Sorry, what is the meaning of 3/4 Noct, 1.2 Noct, 1.5 Plena, 2.4, 2.9 Plena. Can someone explain please!
I like this review. I use the Canon T3i camera. Is this glass compatible with Canon T3i camera? Do I have to get an adapter?
I will switch system for the first manufacture that brings to market a small lightweight 400-600/2.8.
As always, I enjoyed the great info..
À choisir entre un :
- Canon R3, objectif 100-300 ou
- Sony A7rV 300 Mmm Gm plus un A7rV 70-200.
- Sony A7rV 400 mm gm
Quelle configuration choisir entre ces deux là
?? Pour du sportif f( football )
I would put it on an A7R5 and shoot in APS-C mode.
So, filter slot like this can’t make a CPL turn, right ?
My arms are happy, wallet not the same story.
What??? "Noct" and "Plena" aren't standard terms used in the context of photography lenses. Are you referring to specific lens models or lines? This isn't common terminology to me and these terms don't appear to relate to optical characteristics or weight measurements.
What about the RF 100-300 2.8 that's a pretty versatile lens too...
Awesome. What a cool lens. Priced where the DSLR versions were back in their day so it's really a decent deal. I wonder if the Nikon and Canon 1X0-300 f/2.8 zooms (and that older Sigma zoom!) make more sense for the likely use cases like sports, however. Still, I'm glad it exists!
Sony should have made it a 100/120 - 300 2.8 zoom instead of 300 fix 2.8. Anyway, at this weight as the old 70200gm v1, it will be OK if one has the 70200gm2. So carrying a 70200GM2 + 300GM is about the same weight as Canon RF 100-300mm which is not as flexible but at least will cover that ranges.
Nikon has the 400 f4.5 that is 220g lighter and does not need a teleconverter to get to 400mm and costs half as much. Yes this is half the weight of the Nikon and Canon's 300mm f2.8 but they are old technology. For wildlife, the difference between 200 and 300mm is seldom enough to justify a new lens. We will normally want 400mm+. The lens is still extraordinary.
To say the 300 GM is the lightest in class is an understatement, the original 70-200 GM is actually heavier then the 300 GM.
Hi C&J is it a true 300mm?
Can you try this lens on a Z9 with an E2Z adapter please?
6k only! I'll take 2
Canon does make a 300mm f/2.8. But it’s nowhere near the G Master in terms of size, weight or monetary value.
2x teleconverter would give you 600mm f/4? Or f/5.6?
f/5.6
@@johannweber5185 That's pretty good.
this will replace my kit lens
I would love a 85 mm 1.2
Sony has been on a roll with their new lens production, but I don't ever see myself getting this lens.
It looks like Minolta's 300 2,8
is it just me, or is the G9II making Chris's face blurry?
Nothing about video usage?
Exactly what I expected from this lens . I would love to see a 400mm Sony f5.6 which could be a bit cheaper 🤔
Why not going for the 100-400 GM then? It's already 1/3-1/2 of the price and a lot more flexible.
A great lens I have just sold mine as it happens. Certainly a great option. The 300GM f2.8 is on another level though, a fixed focal length is key for ultimate quality. @@joeysnacht
why would the RF 100-300 2.8 not count as part of the line up for 300 2.8 on modern bodies?
❤❤❤❤❤
ahhhhhh, my wallet!
Doesn't seem like a good vlogging lens😢
When the competition switches to 100-300mm zooms, Sony FINALLY makes a 300mm 2.8😁
Seems like Sony keeps releasing fantastic fast lenses, whereas Canon keeps releases slightly slow, slightly longer focal length, kind of weird lenses... or just welding teleconverters onto old lenses. As a Canon shooter, I'm pretty envious of the Sony lenses.
You must be on Krack naruto san. Canon has a far superior 100-300mm F2.8 Sony is behind at this point even Nikkor lens' are far superior than what sony has. Come out from under the rock ... lol
As a Canon shooter, you should have known they have a 100-300 f/2.8.
No animal will let you come close enough with 300mm lens. It needs 2x TC permanently mounted on it, or better yet just buy a 600mm lens.
Is the way Chris pronounces "detent" some kind of ongoing joke? He pronounces "detent" as "detente", which are two words with very different meanings...
great prime lens..holy christ its 6thou bucks woww 🙀🙀🤢🤢
I mean i kinda get saying this is the only 300 2.8 but acting like the 100-300 doesnt even exist seems a bit weird. A smaller and lighter lens is nice but really the 100-300 replaces the 300 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 where this lens youd need the 70-200 also which gets rid of weight, size, and cost savings. you also just dont have 200-300 range in exchange for 30mm on wide end
70200GM2 + 300GM is 120g lighter than RF 100-300. Only thing is it is less flexible but on the other hand 300mm working alone is around 860g lighter than RF 100-300 (weight does matter unless one is very fit or young. 300GM is quite a bit cheaper than RF 100-300.
@@wingcreator that's not a lot of weight savings at all. The 300 is cheaper but the 300 and 70-200 aren't really cheaper. I'm sure some people wouldn't need both and are happy with just 300 but I know a lot of sports photographers would still need a 70-200
If the lense is a 300mm at close focus it's amazing. It's twice as heavy as the Nikon 300mm f4.0 pf, 220g heavier than the Nikon 400mm f4.5 (clearly with the teleconverter the Sony is even heavier but a little bit faster f4.5 vs f4.0), and half the weight of the old technology 300mm f2.8 from Nikon and Canon. If you need 400mm clearly the Nikon is a far superior option, significantly lighter and less than half the price.
In Russia , we have neural networks that translate English - language UA-cam videos to us right on the fly . Dubbed translation, male and female voices. Do you have something like that there? Watch the video from Russia?
Cue the angry Canikon users 😅
Correction: every other conceivable brand stan is here crying 😂😂😂
It's driving me crazy that Sony is making such great photography gear, because I've been boycotting Sony products for 19 years now and have no intention to cave in now. Sony was caught including auto-installing rootkit style malware on their music CDs and refused to apologize or stop.
This is not the first 300 2.8, Canon already had one for their EF mounts for years, and they also just released the RF100-300 2.8
For their old mounts and not prime.
RF 100-300 is a zoom. 300GM is a prime.
Great video... but I'm getting the Canon 100-300mm 2.8... it will replace my 70-200F2.8 and my 200mm F2.0. Canon's lens is as sharp as the prime and will be cheaper than with 2 additional lens that i don;t need. sony..Lightest lens? LOL still over 3lbs. Canon's 100-300mm F2.8 will be far more versatile and useful. sony's at $6,000? spend a bit more and get the Canon 100-300mm no brainer.
Lovely. I like the notion of an extra control ring without needing to change to another camera system.
If you compare most GMs to other brands equivalents the GM is usually smaller and lighter, thats my favorite part about them.
Definitely, my favourite 70200GM2 is about the same weight as RF70200 2.8 (but Canon does not design it to use 1.4/2.0x - first in this class which has a crippling effect). 14 1.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.4 (not yet appeared in N/C mirrorless), 50 1.2 GM are lighter and smaller than N/C version.
Also usually optically superior as well.
The GM's tend to be smaller and lighter, but they tend to sacrifice IQ for it when compared to similarly priced competition. Everything has a tradeoff.
@@wingcreatorthe RF70-200 f/2.8 can't use a teleconverter because Canon went all in on putting the rear element right up against the mount flange. This allows the lens to be more compact than comparable lenses, but at the expense of being able to use teleconverters.
@@itsacookie1not really. More like software corrected. That why Sony introduced something like focus breathing compensation. Sony lens design language is a balance between size/weight/software correction vs optically perfect
I appreciate you comparing the Fuji 200mm. I’m a Fuji guy who’s looking to invest in sports photography gear. The 200 is on my shopping list. Do you think the Sony 300 is worth the $6k? Especially now that you can get the Fuji 200 for $4,500.
I have owned the Fuji f2 200mm for a few years, and it is a joy to shoot. I got lucky finding an amazing quality one used. Its equivalent focal length with the adapter is 427mm. It also puts you at 2.8. For wildlife it does feel like it comes up a little short compared to the 100-400, but on cloudy days or lower light scenarios you can still shoot. However, its bigger and heavier. I dont have a monopod, but I really want one for this lens if you are going to be holding it for more than 15 minutes. I am really shocked with what Sony could accomplish here.
The sony is worth it over the fuji for sports and wildlife simply because it means youre now using a Sony body with 10x better autofocus
@@owengee7415 Exactly =) once you go Sony autofocus its impossible to go back to Fuji lol
How the hell they managed only 1400g, absolute beast, canon and others can only learn, and that price...that's crazy
I think Nikon already learned with their wide Z mount. 1,100g for a 400/4.5.
@@Ben_Stewart Z 400 f4.5 is a nice lens (I think around 1/2 the price of 300GM???) but it is not a f2.8. Not exactly Apple to Apple comparison.
All true but 300/400 I'd say it's in the ball park.@@wingcreator
Quick correction, Canon does have a RF 300 2.8 (100-300 to be exact), but the size and weight are in another category.... along with its price, $10,000.
They were likely only referring to fixed focal length. If you include zooms there's actually quite a few in most manufacturers.
@LindonSlaght True, but what company in their right mind would make a fixed AND zoom 300 2.8? It simply makes NO sense to expect that.
I would buy a small & light & cheaper 300 2.8 prime over the 100-300mm. I wish they make one someday.
@@mikejackson9585Of course it would make sense! Even if you have a 100-300/2.8 zoom, the prime will always be lighter, more compact and optically superior over the other. Not to mention there’s the price difference. Just marking checkboxes isn’t all there is to a lens.
@@Barjavel88 Canon avoids to make "me-too-lenses" for the RF mount.
- the 70-200s are by far more compact than the competition
- the 135 solely offers IS
- the 100-400 is a 100-500
- the 300 2.8 prime is the only 2.8 zoom in the 300mm class
- the internal zooming 70-200ish will be in the Z-line as the 24-105 2.8 is.
I doubt Canon even thinking about a 300 2.8 prime. But they will make another (faster) tele zoom beyond 300mm.
This lens whare use...???
Light, affordable - the perfect lens to start your new hobby with ❤
An affordable telephoto prime, how did they do it!?!? Though it would be cool if they'd copy Nikon w/ in internal teleconverter.
@@taylorhickman84me too, but that would have added a little extra weight and length on the back end, and frankly I think this lens was too far along in development to tack that on to the back. I would love to see in another couple years a generation 2 version of all of Sony's telephoto lenses with built-in teleconverters.. that really is a game changer and something that they should strive for in the future.
hey, its less expensive then a A-1 :P
@@RG-rm9jt I would like to see compact Sony 100-300 2.8 GM+1.4x, 200-400 4.0 GM+1.4x, 300/400 4.0 G + 500 5.6 G in the future.
Can this be a substitute of 200-600?
This is tempting. I still want them to update the 85mm G-Master f/1.4 to f/1.2 and better resolution and sharpness… I currently have the Sigma DGDN and it is amazing, has better autofocus and is noticeably sharpner than the current G-Master equivalent, but having a Sony lens would allow me to take advantage of the full suite of features.
G9ii footage looks so good, wow.
Footage from the G9 II looking good - what lenses do you use Jordan, guessing the PanaLeica 1.7 zoom duo?
Also, on the subject of m43, Panasonic/OM should be looking very carefully at this lens. It shows what's possible in terms of size/weight for bright long glass.
As a Canon owner, I want this!
As a sony owner i want the Canon 100-300mm F2.8 you kray kray ... Just watched Gerald's video as well and he had significant flare and glare issues with his sony lens pointed into the sun
that Canon too $$ and too heavy for air travel. @@j.kimmer1509
I have a Canon 200mm 2.0 L lens / I'm waiting for Sony to make the same one... / and the Sony 300mm and 400mm lenses are great
Sony is destroying the apsc is lighter and more compact argument later
When Sony 9 iii review?
Can you please make a video about 300+2x vs 600,I would love to see it 😊
This is that rare lens that is still super sharp with a 2x teleconverter attached. So if you own both TCs you get a 300 2.8, 420 F4 and 600 5.6. Versatile, light, fast AF and sharp!!
That 300 2.8s looks super sharp and very fast to focus.
Does it work with 2X teleconverter?
should have found a hockey game to shoot :P
All that weight comes out of your wallet! :)
But how can this be possible?!?! The e-mount is so small you couldn't possible have small, light, super high quality full frame glass for the e-mount. ;)
Exactly, it doesn't need to be bigger than the sensor.
SONY usually offers the smallest, lightest, sharpest and fastest focusing lenses..
It helps that they seem to have the best people working on the designs.
You know it bugs me that you guys have kept up with the 'Noct' measurements. I get the joke but its redundant. The problem is your measuring it against something that nobody has any frame of reference for. We don't own Noct's. What we do own is standard 24-70mm f2.8. Imagine using that as your standards of measurements?
Maybe your reviewing a m43 12-35mm, and you can then say something like, "Its half a _________." It gives us something we can understand and compare too. Mind you, finding a cleaver name to fill in the space would be important. It does not have to be the 24-70mm f2.8. But I think it would have to be a FF lens so we have a 'standard' to compare all lens to like how we convert sensors for Full Frame Equivalence.
@4:46 your testing chart is not good. I don't see difference. But christopher frost lens testing chart .my god its so beautiful and I always can see clearly
And then you compare it to the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 pro, hmm, no competition.
Nothing yet on the new A9 III announced today 🙂?
"Should you buy it" Oh that's just cruel mate
Optically great! Great video - thanks for sharing
This will be a terrific lens that few will buy as most will choose to get to ~300mm (280mm) with a 1.4 TC on their 70-200mm and at 1/3 the price and the same weight. Sure this will be at f/4 but with more flexibility. Nikon users are lucky to already have the 300mm PF f/4 at 1/3 the price and weight. Canon users, of course, can always get to 300mm on their 200-800mm at some un-Godly aperture and at 1/3 the price but a whole bunch more weight.
Nikon fan boy is raging hard 😂.
note that tc introduces image degradation as well so much so that sometimes cropping is better if its only for social media use etc. but at 6000usd jeez that puts it out of range for the vast majority of photographers. its a super specialised lens and even if its compact, you'll probably end up having to carry additional lenses if out on a field trip. still, id rather sony keep innovating.
It has been demonstrated over and over that the Nikon Z 1.4 TC impacts its z 70-200mm 2.8 to a virtually indistinguishable degree. I am so sorry that you feel that such is not true with Sony.
@@lcador9Im not really aligned with any brand lol I find it childish. Don't fall for the troll comments either. Lastly, all TC do give some drop in sharpness amongst other things. It's physics. Having said that, yea the Nikon z TC and Nikon glass continues to be top notch.
Just got one and it's A-mazing! Exceeds expectation and it's truly handhold-able. Blown away by the quality. Yes, it's expensive and still hurts the wallet but the weight alone (or lack of) will having me using this far more than just dedicated shoots for sports and wildlife.
I wonder why they didn't implement the arca swiss compatible tripod mount...
A great lens though I'm not sure for what kind of photography this is aimed at. Maybe indoor sports?
Canon and Nikon does have 100-300mm f2.8 for their new mounts so it is not true that they dont have a 300mm
As a Canadian I just went bankrupt watching this video. I would love to have this lens but haha no.
Even if I had the $6,000 to spend for this lens, I want it in black, not white.
Mate. I love your style and videos. Thanks.
finally a rear filter slot. Why do so many mirrorless telephotos lack this????
When it comes to Canon and Nikon, the Canon 100-300/2.8 RF springs to mind as the only real competitor. Heavier, more expensive, more flexible.
PetaPixel doesn’t seem to over Canon in depth with video reviews. Perhaps Canon ignores them due to Jordan’s general anti Canon crap… 🤷🏻♂️
Still love using the 300PF on Nikon Z, not 2.8 and needs adapter but half the weight and can be had for ~$800 now.
100-300 zoom is much better than just 300mm prime. I have nice Sigma 100-300/4 EX DG for my Pentax. What a beast. High resolution even wide open, peaks at F5 and you'll barely notice any image improvement with stopping it down more unless you need more DOF. AF although driven by camera motor is very fast and accurate. Stabilisation provided by IBIS. Great telephoto and that range is also fine.
Sig120-300/2.8 or RF100-300/2.8 must be even better.
The need of a 300 2.8 is very limited in our times:
- those 100-400 e.a. take all the amateur needs in this focal length and are by far better in close focussing
- the Pros are by far better off with the flexibility of a 100-300 2.0 for sports, events, ...
- wildlife in most places need more than 300 mm reach
- too long for portrait and fashion
I do nor expect Canon to launch a 300 2.8 any time soon - and Nikon will launch another three lenses in the range of 400-800mm to plaster every thinkable need in wildlife and things.
@@peterebel7899 yeah canon is more likely to release a 300mm f9
But why oh why did they not cut a arca Swiss mount into the foot, boggles the mind
Can't wait for them to dish out the 85GM2, instant buy
its funny, being from socal in the sun a lot that weather seems gorgeous to me
Glad they’ve dropped the intro tbh
Please insert this tech into a 200-600 mm G2.
I am so jealous about sony users rn