The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sony 70-300mm G lens

edwardkaraa

New member
I think I'm going to get this lens, since it will be highly unlikely that Sony will release any Zeiss lenses in this range, now that they have a 70-200, 70-300 and 70-400 to cover it.

I wonder if any of you guys are using it, and would like to hear your impressions.

I understand that the 70-200 and 70-400 may be better performers, but:

Having the Zeiss 85 and 135, there is little interest in the 70-200 as the only FL not covered is the 200mm.

I'm also discouraged by the weight and size of the 70-400, even though it may have better sharpness and longer reach. It will be a lens seldom used and will remain mostly at home.

So the best choice for me seems to be the 70-300 as it is light-weight at 760 grams and quite compact. The price is quite affordable too.

Please let me know your opinions about this lens and thanks in advance.

Edward
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Edward
Jorgen has it.
I think this might be the best value for money I've ever paid for a lens.
The only possible criticism is that it has a slow aperture . . but of course, that's why it's small and light and cheap! The sensor stabilisation means that you can hand hold it at silly shutter speeds to make up for this.

1. it's sharp (oh yes!) - at all focal lengths and apertures
2. it has fine bokeh
3. the ssm focusing is smooth and silent
4. it's small
5. it's relatively cheap
6. it focuses down to 1/4 life size

I use it a great deal.

Can you tell that I like it!
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
I have it too - and find it one of the best lenses in this range that I've ever used. It's light and focusses quickly and quietly. The only downside is the 5.6 aperture at 300 mm.

It is a much better lens than the Canon 70-300 DO I used to own, and although it's larger, it weighs no more.

Last month I took the a900 (and a back-up a700) to Polynesia with just two lenses - the CZ 24-70 and the 70-300 G.

http://www.billcaulfeild-browne.com/assets/galleries/polynesia/index.html

All the bird, fish and most of the portraits were taken with the latter. (The groups and obvious WA shots were with the Zeiss of course.)

I want the 70-400 too, but it's not a light travel lens.

Bill
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
I should have added that although I claim to be a nature photographer, the people of Polynesia and Melanesia are simply so beautiful that I had to include some shots of them too. In fact, most of them live very much as part of nature.

And while I'm pleased with the flying fish, the two I show are the only ones out of well over 100 that I took. They appear very unexpectedly from heaven's knows exactly where, and move very fast. The 70-300 G, however, always locked on focus very quickly once I could frame the critter - and this from a ship moving at 15 knots!

Bill
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Bill
I should have added that although I claim to be a nature photographer, the people of Polynesia and Melanesia are simply so beautiful that I had to include some shots of them too. In fact, most of them live very much as part of nature.
Bill - there are lots of lovely photos (I want to go there!):clap::clap:

The 70-300 G, however, always locked on focus very quickly once I could frame the critter - and this from a ship moving at 15 knots!

Bill
I've found this as well - it's so smooth that you kind of feel that it's going to be slow, but I've also managed to lock focus on birds and such very fast.

I've had the Nikon 70-300 VR and also the Olympus, both of which are well thought of, and the Sony is in a different league altogether (mind you, it's more expensive too).

Bottom line seems to be that if you THINK you MIGHT want it, then buying it is a complete no-brainer
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Thank you guys for the replies.

Jorgen, Thanks for the link. Nice stuff!

Jono and Bill, Thanks also for your comments on the lens. I think my mind is already made up :D
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
If it helps to clinch your decision, I also own it and it is a very good lens, small and light for the range and decently sharp, with SSM too.

Quentin

PS how is the 135mm in comparison with the 85mm? I and I am pretty sure Jono would appreciate any further thoughts on this important subject :LOL: I have the 85mm F1.4 already.
 

jonoslack

Active member
PS how is the 135mm in comparison with the 85mm? I and I am pretty sure Jono would appreciate any further thoughts on this important subject :LOL: I have the 85mm F1.4 already.
Yes indeed - advice on the 135 f1.8 please - I have already sown the first seed by persuading the dealer to take back my useless Tamron . . . .

I'm actually interested in the focusing - the screwdriver focusing on the 100 macro is depressingly pedestrian, and the 50 f1.4 isn't much better, is the 135 the same? Is manual focusing easy to use (there seems to be some confusion on another thread).
Does it work well at the minimum focusing distance? (I often shoot close ups (as opposed to macro) and one of the nice things about the Sony lenses is that they all seem to focus pretty close).
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Well, I usually don't like the 135 focal length and prefer shorter lenses for portraits and that's why I use the 85 more often. I have to say though that the 135 is so nice that I always try to find some use for it, like exterior portraits, or as a medium telephoto. It is so good at close distances that I've used it in the beginning for jewelry shots. Now I have the Sony 100 for that which gets me to 1:1 but I think the 135 is much better at its MFD. Btw, the 135 has less CA in OOF areas than the 85 (I've seen some cyan CA). Focusing is very fast and seems to lock in very accurately. Basically I only have praise for this lens, every bit as good as the 85 and perhaps better.

Here is a shot from the fun thread (that you've already seen):

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=82174&postcount=58

and at MFD:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=76681&postcount=6

and a portrait:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showpost.php?p=76621&postcount=5
 
G

Goldencode

Guest
Edward,
I rented this lens for my gf to use in Africa and I was impressed.
I just bought one for myself and took this shot a few days ago.
Really nice bokeh was a nice surprise !
You just need good light b/c of the slower aperature.
it's a fun lens to use !

 
Yes indeed - advice on the 135 f1.8 please - I have already sown the first seed by persuading the dealer to take back my useless Tamron . . . .

I'm actually interested in the focusing - the screwdriver focusing on the 100 macro is depressingly pedestrian, and the 50 f1.4 isn't much better, is the 135 the same? Is manual focusing easy to use (there seems to be some confusion on another thread).
Does it work well at the minimum focusing distance? (I often shoot close ups (as opposed to macro) and one of the nice things about the Sony lenses is that they all seem to focus pretty close).
I think that AF in the 135 is alright, fast-ish but noisy (compared to the 24-70) perhaps a bit erratic at times. MF is good and precise though there is a bit of lateral play in the focus ring while changing focus direction that I find very annoying.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I think that AF in the 135 is alright, fast-ish but noisy (compared to the 24-70) perhaps a bit erratic at times. MF is good and precise though there is a bit of lateral play in the focus ring while changing focus direction that I find very annoying.
Hi Quino
thank you - that IS useful information . . . . although it doesn't really help me to make a decision!:)
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Hi y'all

I guess what I'd find most helpful would be side by side portaits taken with the 85mm F1.4 and 135mm F1.8. I'd be buying the 135mm exclusively as a portrait lens, where the 85mm is too short. I am not realy fussed about SSM or no SSM. SSM is nice but I would not be relying on lightning speed of autofocus anyway for the uses I have in mind.

Quentin
 

picman

Member
I think that AF in the 135 is alright, fast-ish but noisy (compared to the 24-70) perhaps a bit erratic at times. MF is good and precise though there is a bit of lateral play in the focus ring while changing focus direction that I find very annoying.
Jono, I've only got the 135 for a week but imo focussing is spot-on (best result with the corrector at +1 in my case). It does indeed make a little more noise than the 24-70 or the 16-35 but nothing to worry about as far as I am concerned. Manual focussing is very easy, you just don't want to do it the wrong way I was trying at first: you should do any of the following to focus manually:
1. engage AF-A with DMF in which case the camera will autofocus normally and once done disengage so that you can fine-focus manually if desired
2. switch the rotary on the front of the camera to MF
3. hold or toggle the AF/MF button on the back of the camera to MF

I agree concerning the play, but again, to me it is of not much concern once you know it. Focussing manually goes very smoothly.

I have no pictures worthwhile showing at the moment but will post when I have some "good ones".

Go get it, you will not regret it :thumbup:
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I got the 70-300 today and I'm quite happy with it. Exactly what I expected from your feedback. Thank you all!

This is my second Sony lens, and I can see already a kind of pattern. Very good to excellent sharpness, neutral color (cooler than Zeiss), nice bokeh, but somehow flat and lacking the life (colors, micro-contrast, clarity, 3D) produced by ZA lenses.

Honestly I wouldn't buy any Sony (even G) lens unless I really need to. The difference is huge. Hopefully Sony is listening.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Quentin,

I believe the 85 and 135 focal lengths produce completely different results, regardless of the particular lenses in use. They should be both part of the lens line up of any portraitist.

Here are 2 recent examples of a friend's young daughter. The 135 photo has some movement in it and is not tack sharp, but good enough to show the bokeh and the different characters of each lens. The 85 is shot at f/2 and the 135 at f/2.8:

View attachment 13929

View attachment 13930



Hi y'all

I guess what I'd find most helpful would be side by side portaits taken with the 85mm F1.4 and 135mm F1.8. I'd be buying the 135mm exclusively as a portrait lens, where the 85mm is too short. I am not realy fussed about SSM or no SSM. SSM is nice but I would not be relying on lightning speed of autofocus anyway for the uses I have in mind.

Quentin
 
Last edited:
L

LargeFormat

Guest
I bought the 70-300G to take to Africa with my a900 just before Christmas. I was particularly attracted to its fairly compact size. I've been very pleased with it.
 
Top