rlatjsrud7913
Newcomer
- Followers
- 0
- Following
- 0
- Joined
- May 26, 2025
- Posts
- 3
- Likes Received
- 0
- Trophy Points
- 1
- Name
- Kim
I have Sigma 300-600mm F/4 for a while but I'm deeply disappointed due to its AF performance which is quite unreliable and slow compared to Sony GM lenses. I can say that Sony 200-600 performed a lot better than Sigma 300-600mm F/4 in many ways especially since AF-C does not work while zooming.
While I was using Sony 200-600, it was a perfect lens in terms of zoom range and I normally got best shots between 400~600mm. Because of that, I thought Sigma 300-600mm F/4 might be the best replacement but it never did. Now, I'm gonna sell several Sigma lenses including 300-600mm F/4 for better lenses but I'm in dilemma.
I can spend up to $7500 once I sell my lenses and there are few options such as 50-150 GM, 70-200 GM II, 200-600, 400-800, 100-400, and surprisingly 300GM. Ideally, having 200-600 is the best option since I know the lens well and the coverage is the best while I could get either 50-150 or 70-200. But many sports photographers from different communities suggested 300GM. They said it can replace 70-200 and 200-600 in many sports games.
I dont shoot pro games and only shoot outdoor games so I dont expect to shoot at a large field ever but I can wait. So far, 70-200 and 300GM is what I'm thinking based on other suggestions. But still, tell me why 300GM is the best sports lens which can easily replace 70-200 and 200-600 according to many photographers?
While I was using Sony 200-600, it was a perfect lens in terms of zoom range and I normally got best shots between 400~600mm. Because of that, I thought Sigma 300-600mm F/4 might be the best replacement but it never did. Now, I'm gonna sell several Sigma lenses including 300-600mm F/4 for better lenses but I'm in dilemma.
I can spend up to $7500 once I sell my lenses and there are few options such as 50-150 GM, 70-200 GM II, 200-600, 400-800, 100-400, and surprisingly 300GM. Ideally, having 200-600 is the best option since I know the lens well and the coverage is the best while I could get either 50-150 or 70-200. But many sports photographers from different communities suggested 300GM. They said it can replace 70-200 and 200-600 in many sports games.
I dont shoot pro games and only shoot outdoor games so I dont expect to shoot at a large field ever but I can wait. So far, 70-200 and 300GM is what I'm thinking based on other suggestions. But still, tell me why 300GM is the best sports lens which can easily replace 70-200 and 200-600 according to many photographers?
