Full-Frame Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS Lens

[HarleyG]

I'm seeking advice on lenses, i.e. relating to a Sony telephoto to go with my 24-70 2.8 GMii.
I can’t decide whether to go for the Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS Lens or the 70-200 Gmii.
Appreciate there's a huge price difference but my question is really about performance/usability - so the 300mm has the edge.
But then again, if I bolt on a teleconverter I could push the 200 up to 400 - and using APS-C push it even further.
Can’t help but notice there don't appear to be any threads for the 70-300 so wonder if it's not that popular?
Help!

 

[Unframed Dave]

I have no experience of the 70 to 300, the other is a monster of a lens.

I would be guided by your intended use more than anything.

Pushing lenses by using apsc mode is fine, but you do lose cropability as you are massively reducing your pixel count.

 

[HarleyG]

I have no experience of the 70 to 300, the other is a monster of a lens.

I would be guided by your intended use more than anything.

Pushing lenses by using apsc mode is fine, but you do lose cropability as you are massively reducing your pixel count.

I'm unsure how aps-c works. I assumed it just used a portion of the full-frame sensor.
If I shoot a 61mb image with my A7CR wouldn't aps-c give me a circa 26mb (42%) image or does it just reduce the total pixel count over the full frame?
Using the same calculation, if I shoot a full frame 61mb image and crop it to 42% I assume the resolution remains the same?
Can't find a definitive explanation so would appreciate a link.
Thanks for your response.

 

[Unframed Dave]

It's exactly as you say, it uses a cropped portion of the sensor. Often referred to as crop mode.

 

[iamdlewis]

Many moons ago I owned the Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G, it is a good lens but it just falls into an odd space. When I got the lens it was the longest of the full-frame Sony lens, and I was still using the a6000. As one would expect the lens is versatile, it produces crisp images and is easy to walk around with. The biggest issue with the 70-300 is that it fills an odd space, it isn't really long enough on the long end for wildlife and isn't fast enough for most of those on the shorter end. This is a good nature walk lens for someone that focuses more on the plant world, will photograph a bird in a tree from time to time but really isn't out with the primary reason to photograph anything.

I ended up selling my 70-300 about a year after getting the 100-400GM because I just wasn't using it enough. The 100-400GM is longer, can use a teleconverter, is sharper and much faster at focusing, also 2x the price. The loss of the 70-100 range wasn't really an issue for me as I spent very little time there and I used the funds from the sale towards the 24-105G.

 

[THXGEEK]

As one would expect the lens is versatile, it produces crisp images and is easy to walk around with. The biggest issue with the 70-300 is that it fills an odd space, it isn't really long enough on the long end for wildlife and isn't fast enough for most of those on the shorter end. This is a good nature walk lens for someone that focuses more on the plant world, will photograph a bird in a tree from time to time but really isn't out with the primary reason to photograph anything.

+1

 

[HarleyG]

Thanks, that's really helpful.
An RTA put paid to long walks in the country and birds in flight.
On reflection I think I'll be using the lens for candid street photography which fits in with your 'nature walk' description.
I will, however, take a look at the 100-400 - but guessing it will probably have a much larger footprint than the 70-300.
Appreciate your response.

 

[iamdlewis]

I will, however, take a look at the 100-400 - but guessing it will probably have a much larger footprint than the 70-300

Just a bit. Both of these do extend when zoomed. Weights are 70-30 = 545 g vs 100-400 = 854 g

I don't know if 70-300 is good for street photography.

 

[Taiyo]

Hi, i use the 70-300 daily with my a7RV … i use it mostly in crop mode. I like the size and ease of use and it’s sharpness. And i do a lot of birding with it although not at a distance as that is not its strength. Sadly, it will not take the tele-converter. I did rent the 100-400 to try it out but it was too large and heavy for my use. As everyone is saying … think about what you want to use it for and let that be your guide.

 

[HarleyG]

Thanks, that's helpful.

 

[HarleyG]

Just a bit. Both of these do extend when zoomed. Weights are 70-30 = 545 g vs 100-400 = 854 g
View attachment 78930

I don't know if 70-300 is good for street photography.

That's really helpful. Thanks for this. I think I'll go with the 70-300. Not just the size but the black will make it less conspicuous. Will hopefully post some results on the forum.

 

[iamdlewis]

Not just the size but the black will make it less conspicuous.

Color should never be a deciding factor there are solutions for that. Skins. The switches and foot are actually covered as well.

 

[HarleyG]

Color should never be a deciding factor there are solutions for that. Skins. The switches and foot are actually covered as well.

Having checked out some reviews on the 70-300, many uncomplimentary, I'm even more confused - and I didn’t appreciate there were skins for white lenses.

Anyone else out there using the 70-350 aps-c?

Back to the drawing board

 

[iamdlewis]

Having checked out some reviews on the 70-300, many uncomplimentary, I'm even more confused - and I didn’t appreciate there were skins for white lenses.

Well it is a G lens so it won't be perfect, it is also a 10 year old design at this point. I also have no idea what people are really doing in many reviews. I have used worse lenses. Here are some shots with the 70-300 and a6000. If you think these are fine then your results will be better as nobody is going to mistaken an a6000 as a great camera verse what today's base standard is.

Tamron also makes a 70-300

Also skins are for black lenses too.

• ILCE-6000
• Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/3200 sec
• ISO 320

• ILCE-6000
• Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/3200 sec
• ISO 800

• ILCE-6000
• Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 160

 

[Richard A]

Don't discount Sigma and Tamron lenses. Unfortunately, they are not compatible with the teleconverters but there may be one that suits you better and is a better lens. One of the reasons I moved to Sony a couple of years ago was the vast availability of third party lenses. I use a Tamron 50-400mm and I'm really happy with it. If you look around on here you will find plenty of my photos taken with it.

As far as using crop mode goes, I rarely do. I find it better/easier just to crop in post.

Richard's Gallery

 

[HarleyG]

Well it is a G lens so it won't be perfect, it is also a 10 year old design at this point. I also have no idea what people are really doing in many reviews. I have used worse lenses. Here are some shots with the 70-300 and a6000. If you think these are fine then your results will be better as nobody is going to mistaken an a6000 as a great camera verse what today's base standard is.

Tamron also makes a 70-300

Also skins are for black lenses too.

View attachment 78958
View attachment 78959
View attachment 78960

Great images but I get your point – although I suspect the images on the website are much, much lower resolution than your originals – 72/96 dpi? If admin is reading this I'd be interested to know this. What concerned me most about several of the reviews is they had to send their lenses back to Sony owing to focus issues. In today's world of grey imports that might not be so easy. Hadn't occurred to me but guess that's one very big reason to buy from authorised retailers. Appreciate your comments.

 

[HarleyG]

Don't discount Sigma and Tamron lenses. Unfortunately, they are not compatible with the teleconverters but there may be one that suits you better and is a better lens. One of the reasons I moved to Sony a couple of years ago was the vast availability of third party lenses. I use a Tamron 50-400mm and I'm really happy with it. If you look around on here you will find plenty of my photos taken with it.

As far as using crop mode goes, I rarely do. I find it better/easier just to crop in post.

Richard's Gallery

Thanks Richard, love the images, beginning to think choosing lenses is harder than the photography!

 

[AlphaWorld]

I'm seeking advice on lenses, i.e. relating to a Sony telephoto to go with my 24-70 2.8 GMii.
I can’t decide whether to go for the Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS Lens or the 70-200 Gmii.
Appreciate there's a huge price difference but my question is really about performance/usability - so the 300mm has the edge.
But then again, if I bolt on a teleconverter I could push the 200 up to 400 - and using APS-C push it even further.
Can’t help but notice there don't appear to be any threads for the 70-300 so wonder if it's not that popular?
Help!

The 70-300 is one of the earliest G lenses. It's not awful, but I wouldn't buy it.

The 70-200 GM II is an excellent lens, and a classic complement to the 24-70 GM II. It's a fixed length zoom, sharp and fast. The 24-70 + 70-200 are classic choices if you are planning to photograph people; both are f/2.8 zooms.

The 70-200 GM II works well with the 1.4x teleconverter, but suffers a hit with the 2x - I would not count on the 2x giving you a comparable 140-400mm f/5.6 lens. On the other hand, yes, using it with APS-C crop works fine.

However, the question is what you want in a longer lens. If you are looking for a lens for shooting, for example, wildlife, maybe you should look to an even longer lens. Both the 200-600mm G and the 400-800mm G are very good choices if you are looking for a seriously longer lens. You will get a lot more reach with either, and both are better choices than the 70-300. The one catch is that they are not lightweight lenses.