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.