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!

300mm 2.8 Sony

edwardkaraa

New member
Well, Sony is asking 60% more than the Canon equivalent, which has IS while the Sony doesn't. So like you, I'm also interested to know who shed all this money and are they happy with it :D I'm afraid so far I have not seen anything impressive from it.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Very interesting indeed. I wonder though how much better is it than the Canon equivalent (with IS) which is also considered an excellent performer. Luckily I don't need/use this focal length.
 
N

nautilus

Guest
Very interesting indeed. I wonder though how much better is it than the Canon equivalent (with IS) which is also considered an excellent performer. Luckily I don't need/use this focal length.
Sadly I think it's the truth, that Canon is still the leader in telephoto lenses. :D
This Sony 300 is so expensive that I couldn't find many example pictures, almost as if the lens would only exist on paper. ;)

This long distance shots on artphoto website all look like I would have used my A100 in sunset jpg mode, whitebalance too high and a lot of air turbulences between me and the subject, all shot at dawn. I don't think that these test shots show lenses' real capabilities nor that they are representative.
 
G

Goldencode

Guest
There are some Minolta 300 f2.8 in the ~$2000 price range on e*bay.
 

gsking

New member
they're not worlds apart in IQ
Well, then save your money on the SSM. I haven't used it, but I've used the older model, and it was only slightly sharper than my $1000 Tokina wide open.

I've heard from many people that the 300mm is the worst of the big white lenses. The 200mm and 400mm are noticeably sharper, and Photodo agrees. The 300/4 gets worse ratings, for what it's worth, but more importantly, the 80-200HS gets BETTER ratings, and it's a zoom.

Greg
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
We really need Bill to chime in here, as he claimed the Sony was "at least equal" to the Canon.
Well, here I am, chiming in after a couple of weeks away on my boat, far from wi-fi!

The 300 mm SSM G is indeed the equal of the Canon, in my view, at least in rendition of fine detail. (The Sony autofocus is not as fast as the Canon). And it's still very impressive when you add the 1.4X TC.

I had a bad/good experience with my first 300. I bought it back in December but was away and didn't get to test it until much later - by which time I also had the 70-400 G. Naturally I compared them at 300 mm and you can imagine my concern when I found the 70-400 at f5 superior to the 300 at f2.8 and f4.

I copied my test shots to a CD and took it and the lens back to Sony. They returned the lens to Japan, and a couple of weeks later they simply sent me a new lens! No argument, no hassle.

Now I've tested the (new!) 300 against the 70-400 and I feel I've got my money's worth. It is very good at f2.8, right across the field, and improves marginally to extremely good at f4. After that, it's diffraction limited.

At f8 there is little to choose between the two lenses, tho' the 300 has a slight edge in contrast. Also, the 300 gives a larger image than the the zoom set at 300! I need to set the zoom to about 315 mm to get a comparable fov. Either the zoom is marked "optimistically" (as I suspect) or the 300 is actually a little longer than advertised.

I no longer have the Canon 300 so I have done no direct comparisons but my long-time familiarity with that lens leads me to believe the Sony is its equal and it may even be better at the corners.

Pricewise, my favourite dealer in Canada charges about CDN$5200 for the Canon and $5800 for the Sony - so there is hard-to-justify premium for the Sony.

Bill
 

Braeside

New member
Thanks Bill, nice to hear about your experiences of those super lenses. Glad that Sony replaced the first one, but disappointing that it got through QA in the first place.

Regarding different apparent FOV between the zoom and the prime, this is common with some zooms, they only give their marked focal length at infinity, usually if you focus closer then a 300mm might become a 275mm or so. Perhaps that was what you were seeing in your tests.
 

JimU

Not Available
Well, then save your money on the SSM. I haven't used it, but I've used the older model, and it was only slightly sharper than my $1000 Tokina wide open.

I've heard from many people that the 300mm is the worst of the big white lenses. The 200mm and 400mm are noticeably sharper, and Photodo agrees. The 300/4 gets worse ratings, for what it's worth, but more importantly, the 80-200HS gets BETTER ratings, and it's a zoom.

Greg
hmm, you're probably right about the 300. compared to the 200 & 400, it doesn't seem to get much love. i thought the only reason for a 300/4 was that it would be sharper. that is strange it gets worse ratings. but i guess it is extremely less pricey.

too bad there's no sharp 400/2.8.
 
N

nautilus

Guest
...
Pricewise, my favourite dealer in Canada charges about CDN$5200 for the Canon and $5800 for the Sony - so there is hard-to-justify premium for the Sony.

Bill

Good prices you have in Canada. Please sit down before you read further what the typical prices in Germany are at the same dealer for both manufacturers:

Canon EF 300 mm 1:2,8L USM: €4179
Sony 2,8/300 G SM: €7595

EURO, not $!!!

http://www.ac-foto.com/ac/shop/shop.php
 

Eoin

Member
Good prices you have in Canada. Please sit down before you read further what the typical prices in Germany are at the same dealer for both manufacturers:

Canon EF 300 mm 1:2,8L USM: €4179
Sony 2,8/300 G SM: €7595

EURO, not $!!!

http://www.ac-foto.com/ac/shop/shop.php
Ouch, good price on the Canon 300L though. Those in Europe looking at the Sony 300 might consider parkcameras in the UK, £3849 for the Sony and £3787 for the Canon.

I was very tempted a couple of months back when the £ to € exchange rate was .93p. But in the end opted for the far more versatile but slower 70-400.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I'm sure sometime in the near future Sony will release a 200mm prime. If the old rumours are true, it's going to be a Zeiss macro in the f/2 to f/2.8 range. Combined with a 1.4X TC, it gives a 280mm, quite close to 300mm. I'm saving my money for that ;)
 

gsking

New member
Yeah, something faster than 2.8 would be interesting. As it is, the 200mm 2.8 has some stiff competition in the 70-200mm and 80-200mm. Yes, it's lighter and slightly harper, but for me, I justify my primes based primarily on their speed advantage and cost benefit. Since I can use my zoom wide open at 200mm and 2.8 with great results, spending almost as much again to get the 200mm 2.8 is hard to justify.

At 300mm and above, we're forced to go to primes if we want those faster speeds.
 
Top