I just ordered the 300 mm f/2.8 GM (and there's a rumour of the new 100-400 coming (real soon now))

[-ST-]

Oh oh, I just ordered my 300 mm f/2.8 GM. I'm picking it up in a few days. There's still time to cancel, I suppose. Given how long I've waited, is it worthwhile to wait and see what happens with the rumoured 100-400 f/4?

Three years ago 200-600
I had looked at the old 100-400 but opted for the 200-600 instead and been very happy with it.

Why not get the 400-800
I chose not to get the 400-800, thinking that I already struggle a bit with the 200-600 not being 'fast enough', and that the 400-800 would be harder to fling around for fast action (birds in flight).

And conditions (not enough light)
I shoot mostly in the hour before and after sunrise, and I get the impression that our weather here is not dissimilar to the UK. With software, I get decent results with ISO 16800 (needed to get reasonable shutter speeds), but that only gets you so far.

Why don't I already have the 300 mm
A year ago, I picked up the A1 II (and kept my A1) because I walk around with two cameras every day anyway. I traded in my A7 IV to get the A1 II.
I could have gotten the 300 mm, but I really wanted the pre-capture, better in body stabilization (low light) and updated autofocus in the A1 II. I have no regrets about getting the A1 II.

What I want from the 300 mm now
I already have the 2x teleconverter, and from everything I've read and watched (and seen here), the results should be at least as good as I get with the 200-600 f/5.6-6.3
And even with the 2x teleconverter, the 300 mm benefits (I hope) compared to 200-600

• shorter and lighter =
  • physically easier to follow birds in flight
  • physically easier to hold the lens for an extended time while waiting for a bird or animal to do something interesting
• higher shutter speeds = sharper images
• better OSS (optical steady shot) with A1 II
• faster autofocus (even with 2x teleconverter)
• in the early mornings, I expect to shoot at 300 mm f/2.8 (first 30 minutes I'm out) and then when it's light out, add the 2x teleconverter and shoot at 600 mm f/5.6

What do you think?

 

[spudhead]

Simple answer they are two completely different tools and the 300 2.8 will not disappoint, and used carefully with teleconverters it will return good results. I have the current 100-400 and it has had little use in the years I have owned it

 

[Unframed Dave]

As said above, the 300 will not dissapoint. It's an absolute gem.

 

[THXGEEK]

As said above, the 300 will not dissapoint. It's an absolute gem.

+1

On the other hand....

I think you should get them both. I will. Why? Because its only money and you can't take it with you!

Annnnnd....

(Y'all know what's coming.... Dontcha?)

.
.
.
.

You can never have enough lenses....
...You just can't!!!

 

[Unframed Dave]

+1

On the other hand....

I think you should get them both. I will. Why? Because its only money and you can't take it with you!

Annnnnd....

(Y'all know what's coming.... Dontcha?)

.
.
.
.

You can never have enough lenses....
...You just can't!!!

There are no pockets in shrouds.

 

[Lynzie Flynn]

Oh oh, I just ordered my 300 mm f/2.8 GM. I'm picking it up in a few days. There's still time to cancel, I suppose. Given how long I've waited, is it worthwhile to wait and see what happens with the rumoured 100-400 f/4?

Three years ago 200-600
I had looked at the old 100-400 but opted for the 200-600 instead and been very happy with it.

Why not get the 400-800
I chose not to get the 400-800, thinking that I already struggle a bit with the 200-600 not being 'fast enough', and that the 400-800 would be harder to fling around for fast action (birds in flight).

And conditions (not enough light)
I shoot mostly in the hour before and after sunrise, and I get the impression that our weather here is not dissimilar to the UK. With software, I get decent results with ISO 16800 (needed to get reasonable shutter speeds), but that only gets you so far.

Why don't I already have the 300 mm
A year ago, I picked up the A1 II (and kept my A1) because I walk around with two cameras every day anyway. I traded in my A7 IV to get the A1 II.
I could have gotten the 300 mm, but I really wanted the pre-capture, better in body stabilization (low light) and updated autofocus in the A1 II. I have no regrets about getting the A1 II.

What I want from the 300 mm now
I already have the 2x teleconverter, and from everything I've read and watched (and seen here), the results should be at least as good as I get with the 200-600 f/5.6-6.3
And even with the 2x teleconverter, the 300 mm benefits (I hope) compared to 200-600

• shorter and lighter =
  • physically easier to follow birds in flight
  • physically easier to hold the lens for an extended time while waiting for a bird or animal to do something interesting
• higher shutter speeds = sharper images
• better OSS (optical steady shot) with A1 II
• faster autofocus (even with 2x teleconverter)
• in the early mornings, I expect to shoot at 300 mm f/2.8 (first 30 minutes I'm out) and then when it's light out, add the 2x teleconverter and shoot at 600 mm f/5.6

What do you think?

I have the a1 ii and the 300 f2.8. I use it most often with the 2x which gives me f5.6 I'm never disappointed. I'm a small elderly woman and I shoot almost entirely hand held. I also like that I can use the APS-c mode and that will give me 900mm and still have a big enough file to crop. Everything I've posted on here in the short time I've been here has been with this combination. I had the 200-600 and it was too heavy for me so gave that up in favor of the 300 and love it. If I need to zoom, my feet do the walking. If you feel you need a lower ISO (I don't care what my ISO is) use it with the 1.4.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I will be looking at the specs and reviews of the 100-400 f/4.5 when it is announced, even though I own the 300mm GM. Sometimes you need the zoom. Sometimes you need the clarity of a long prime.

I've been photographing snow leopard cubs recently with a 300 + 1.4x (giving 420mm f/4) - that's produced much better results than the 400-800 (as you suggested, it's substantially lighter than the 400-800, and I was at the short end of the range almost the entire time. However, there were scenes where I'd have wanted to pull back a bit (two cubs separated from one another, for example), and the zoom would have been handy, and would have cost me just one third of a stop.

The announcement (and probably the first rash of reviews) is about 10 days away - might be worth waiting to see.

If you can only afford one, then it's a tough call, and I'm going to say you are really the only person who can make that call.

 

[THXGEEK]

If I need to zoom, my feet do the walking.

I should do more of this.

Sometimes you need the zoom.

+1

Alot of my backyard photography benefits from the 100-400mm. I'm really looking forward to the improvements.

 

[ZaboAA]

I’m going on safari in the fall I love my 300 but the versatitily of the 100-400 is a better choice for me. The 100-400 and the 600 f4 will be my two main lens. If the new 100-400 is lighter (or at least close) and sharp I will be upgrading.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I’m going on safari in the fall I love my 300 but the versatitily of the 100-400 is a better choice for me. The 100-400 and the 600 f4 will be my two main lens. If the new 100-400 is lighter (or at least close) and sharp I will be upgrading.

Nice combination, how do you get the 600 on the plane?

 

[ZaboAA]

Nice combination, how do you get the 600 on the plane?

I have it detached and it fits in my carry on easy peasy. So 600 vertical just to the right 100-400 vertical and my A1ii and A75 neatly stacked on top of the 100-400. Not bad actually.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I have it detached and it fits in my carry on easy peasy. So 600 vertical just to the right 100-400 vertical and my A1ii and A75 neatly stacked on top of the 100-400. Not bad actually.

Are you able to take a photo of the bag layout?

What bag are you using?

 

[-ST-]

Picked up the lens. It was already after dark. I’m staying with relatives. I took these in the dimly lit, basement man cave - ridiculously extreme test.
Neither of these should have worked (taken hand held, unsupported). Look at the shutter speeds and ISO.
No noise-reduction or sharpening applied.

• ILCE-1M2
• FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/121 sec
• ISO 5000

• ILCE-1M2
• FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/20 sec
• ISO 12800

Sorry for the crummy phone shot.
A1 II with 300 mm f/2.8 on the left (it won’t quite fit with the lens hood in shooting mode). A1 with 200 mm 70-200 GM II (ready to shoot) on the right. Above that is the 2x teleconverter. I use this bag (ThinkTank 26L) to get me to the site, and then carry the cameras with my Cotton Carrier G3. So it’s not as though I’m hiking around with the bag and having to pull the cameras out before shooting.

• Surface Duo 2
• 4.4 mm
• 333/10000 sec
• ISO 505