Sony Announces Development of New 300mm F2.8 G Master Lens

[Brownie]

The existing 300mm lenses sit at around $6k, rather than $8k - I'm guessing the 300 GM will sit around there, too. I may be deluded, but I'm happy in my delusion for now

Still waiting for the "in development announcement for a 200mm f/2, too.

Yeah, 'cause that makes a HUGE difference. Honestly, $4k, $5k, $6k, whatever k. I'd have to really NEED that lens. It's such a MOR Focal length, it makes no sense to me. It may make sense to someone else, I just don't see it. I'd rather spend $3k on a 70-200 and a 1.4TC for the loss of a stop and 20mm. A lot more versatile.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Well @Brownie is the voice of reason in this thread. Honestly if it's $4K or more, which it almost certainly will be, then it's out of reach for me. Plus I don't know if I could be happy with a non-zoom. Canon released a patent (but not yet an official announcement) of a 300 f2.8 with built-in 1.4x teleconverter. Although it's not a zoom, it is still more versatile than one without the converter. Nikon is also putting built-in converters in their large aperture lenses. Too bad Sony seems unwilling to do so.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Yeah, 'cause that makes a HUGE difference. Honestly, $4k, $5k, $6k, whatever k. I'd have to really NEED that lens. It's such a MOR Focal length, it makes no sense to me. It may make sense to someone else, I just don't see it. I'd rather spend $3k on a 70-200 and a 1.4TC for the loss of a stop and 20mm. A lot more versatile.

I understand. I was out using the 70-200 GM II with a 1.4x two hours ago, but I’d be interested in having the 300mm plus the option of the 1.4x on it (420mm) - then I’d be losing one stop and gaining 20mm over the 400 f/2.8 which is the lens that I cannot see myself affording - pretty much the same situation as you, but one step further up the ladder. With the exception of the people who own both the 400 and 600, I think we all have a lens that’s out of reach; what’s different is which one…

Would you be so kind as to tell me what MOR means, please? I came up with a few definition, but none of them seemed likely: Maximum Operational Readiness sounds very army, and Malformed Orange Rectangle seems just odd. Enquiring minds need to know!

 

[Brownie]

I understand. I was out using the 70-200 GM II with a 1.4x two hours ago, but I’d be interested in having the 300mm plus the option of the 1.4x on it (420mm) - then I’d be losing one stop and gaining 20mm over the 400 f/2.8 which is the lens that I cannot see myself affording - pretty much the same situation as you, but one step further up the ladder. With the exception of the people who own both the 400 and 600, I think we all have a lens that’s out of reach; what’s different is which one…

Would you be so kind as to tell me what MOR means, please? I came up with a few definition, but none of them seemed likely: Maximum Operational Readiness sounds very army, and Malformed Orange Rectangle seems just odd. Enquiring minds need to know!

MOR = Middle Of the Road.

The thing is, I can afford it. I could buy the 600 and an A1 today. I am more frugal than that, plus both my wife and bank accounts would protest. I would have to really need or REALLY want one, and right now I'm saving my goodwill points for the pending A9III release, just in case I can't live without one.

It's all about the least amount of money I need to spend to get where I need to be. My recently realized need for an 85 resulted in a Minolta A-Mount 1.4. It's a fantastic pro grade lens that will match easily with the Samyang and even Sony's 1.8 at less cost. Since my need for it is limited, I saw no reason to spend thousands.

This isn't out of necessity. I know many people think I protest costs because I can't afford them. I earn a very good living and am collecting a pension to boot. I consider it a challenge, and one that I very much enjoy undertaking.

The scenario you describe above gets you to 420mm and f/4. The 200-600 gets there for one more stop, or a stop and a third all the way to 600. So, then I ask myself, is it worth five or six thousand dollars more for a stop or two? Under what circumstances would I need that lens? Short answer is, I don't need one. And if I do decide I can't live without one, I can get the A-Mount for a lot less money.

Horses for courses.

 

[AlphaWorld]

(begging for forgiveness in advance)

So the 200-600 is the MORe affordable path to longer focal length - perfectly sensible approach to take.

(yeah, yeah, I’ll get my coat)