Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: 300mm 2.8 Sony

  1. #1
    Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    130
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    24

    300mm 2.8 Sony

    Does anyone have any first hand experience with this lens?

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    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 I'm afraid so far I have not seen anything impressive from it.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  3. #3
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    Tex, you may want to PM Bill Caulfeild-Browne, as he has had the lens for a while:

    http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showth...1705#post81705

  4. #4
    Member gilgameshist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Uruk
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    Tex,

    Have you seen this test?

    http://artaphot.ch/index.php?option=...=174&Itemid=43

    It's quite interesting!

    MG

  5. #5
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    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.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  6. #6
    nautilus
    Guest

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    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.
    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.

  7. #7
    Goldencode
    Guest

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

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

  8. #8
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    We really need Bill to chime in here, as he claimed the Sony was "at least equal" to the Canon.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldencode View Post
    There are some Minolta 300 f2.8 in the ~$2000 price range on e*bay.
    Old models, not the same optical design. The SSM will run much more than this, and is reportedly a lot sharper.

    Greg

  10. #10
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    they're not worlds apart in IQ

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by JimU View Post
    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

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    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

  13. #13
    Senior Member Braeside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fife, Scotland (UK)
    Posts
    1,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    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.
    David Anderson

  14. #14
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by gsking View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    nautilus
    Guest

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Caulfeild-Browne View Post
    ...
    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

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by nautilus View Post
    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!
    Bill

  17. #17
    Senior Member Eoin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Dublin / Ireland
    Posts
    410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    Quote Originally Posted by nautilus View Post
    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.
    A7II, FE 35, 55 C/Y 18, 28, 85, 100, 28-85

  18. #18
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    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
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 300mm 2.8 Sony

    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •