Sony 70-300mm G , worth the premium ?

[Atarandas]

Hi all ,

Just wondering if any bros here owns a 70-300mm G lens . Any comments on its quality compared to other brands 70-300mm which are cheaper ?

[dr34mc4st3r]

i think the best value for money is the tamron tele lens. good quality at a much cheaper price.

however if u wan luxury stuff such as SSM and damn good picture quality , go for the 70-300 G SSM. i "downgraded" from an 80-200 APO G HS to go 70-300 G SSM but to be honest other than the 2.8 max aperture there's nothing much else i missed from my previous lens.

[Atarandas]

Thanks for the tip. Been thinking about what are the probable lens to upgrade and really wondering whether the G and CZ lens are for me . So far the kit lenses have been doing fine , the only time they dont are due to the Man behind the equipment

[Rashkae]

Originally Posted by Atarandas Hi all , Just wondering if any bros here owns a 70-300mm G lens . Any comments on its quality compared to other brands 70-300mm which are cheaper ?

There is a very noticeable difference in picture sharpness, bokeh and color cast for me. I'm really happy I got the 70-300.

[MontoyaSG]

Originally Posted by dr34mc4st3r i think the best value for money is the tamron tele lens. good quality at a much cheaper price. however if u wan luxury stuff such as SSM and damn good picture quality , go for the 70-300 G SSM. i "downgraded" from an 80-200 APO G HS to go 70-300 G SSM but to be honest other than the 2.8 max aperture there's nothing much else i missed from my previous lens.

70-300G is F4.5-F5.6 man.. but somehow still works well in low light conditions

[dr34mc4st3r]

well yep im fine with the f4.5. if wan to take dark situations, probably have to go brighter than f2.8 anyway

[ongll]

I owned the lens before and was very happy with the performance (at given weight, size and it's fast & quiet SSM operation). It is also the cheapest SSM lens from Sony.
The only downside is that it's F4.5, so indoor or low light usage is quite a challenge.

It's a good lens to start with before going to 70-200 which cost 2,5 more expensive at least.

I'm referring to Sony's one... not 3rd party brand.

[TME]

You really need also to take the weight of a 70-200 f/2.8 into consideration... these lenses are really heavy and hand-holding >2kg over one afternoon is not an easy task. Especially if you're shooting a lot and constantly changing position.

I see lots of people with f/2.8 lenses these days (Canons especially) and they tote these lenses around like a fashion accessory... sometimes I wonder, given what they're shooting, if they really need such a long lens and a fast one at that...

The 70-300G is really more than adequate for most people... unless you're shooting concerts (in which case you need f/1.7 or faster if flash is not allowed) or high speed action under artificial lighting or night time... otherwise most people seem to be better off with a 24-70 f/2.8 rather than a monster telephoto zoom...

[ongll]

Actually 70-200G is not that heavy after all. I recalled when I switched from kit lens 18-70 to CZ 16-80, it was unbearable for the first few days. Then I get used to it. Then i moved on with 24-70 which is heavier and get used to it.

After that, even 70-200G is within tolerance for a 3-4 hours shooting non-stop.

[TME]

Originally Posted by ongll Actually 70-200G is not that heavy after all. I recalled when I switched from kit lens 18-70 to CZ 16-80, it was unbearable for the first few days. Then I get used to it. Then i moved on with 24-70 which is heavier and get used to it. After that, even 70-200G is within tolerance for a 3-4 hours shooting non-stop.

The 70-200G is about 1.4 kg, no? Your A700 is 850g, plus grip, plus 58 flash, you're carrying about 3 kg on one hand for a whole day... think about carrying a full-szied laptop around... heavy? Surely!

[reaper3075]

Originally Posted by TME The 70-200G is about 1.4 kg, no? Your A700 is 850g, plus grip, plus 58 flash, you're carrying about 3 kg on one hand for a whole day... think about carrying a full-szied laptop around... heavy? Surely!

maybe he got big arms..

but seriously, 'heavy' depends on each individual strength i guess..

[TME]

Originally Posted by reaper3075 maybe he got big arms.. but seriously, 'heavy' depends on each individual strength i guess..

Perhaps, but it's not just arm strength... remember you're gripping the camera with one hand... your hand (not arm) just gets so tired it cramps up after a few hours of hand holding the camera... it just doesn't suit me I guess... my style of shooting...

[Rashkae]

Originally Posted by TME Perhaps, but it's not just arm strength... remember you're gripping the camera with one hand... your hand (not arm) just gets so tired it cramps up after a few hours of hand holding the camera... it just doesn't suit me I guess... my style of shooting...

Use the hand strap. I do.

[TME]

Originally Posted by Rashkae Use the hand strap. I do.

Hmm... any hand strap for the vertical grip as well?

[Rashkae]

Originally Posted by TME Hmm... any hand strap for the vertical grip as well?

Hmm, I know the HS can be used when the VG is attached, but not specifically for the VG.

Either way it's great exercise!

[Atarandas]

Hmm just wondering , do the 70-200m G and 70-300m G both fare well in low lighting conditions like concerts ? Especially if we have to resort to shoot with slow shutter speeds , with the weight bond to be alot of shake .

I have seen pple clunging their canon 70-200mm for night shooting without flash at around 8 pm at Merlion park , i wonder do they get a decent sharp well exposed picture , or the lenses itself is so marvelous =D

[andretan]

Originally Posted by Atarandas Hmm just wondering , do the 70-200m G and 70-300m G both fare well in low lighting conditions like concerts ? Especially if we have to resort to shoot with slow shutter speeds , with the weight bond to be alot of shake . I have seen pple clunging their canon 70-200mm for night shooting without flash at around 8 pm at Merlion park , i wonder do they get a decent sharp well exposed picture , or the lenses itself is so marvelous =D

Can't help but at your last comment.

[Atarandas]

Eh I didnt mean to sound sarcastic honestly ! But just that so far all the telezooms I have seen are Canon ?? haha . The only time i saw alot of Alpha systems user was at the Alpha900 launch at Mercedes centre.

But i really wonder , cos if the lens is capable to shooting at such dark condition , then its something that I would to save up for heh.

[eow]

the 70-300 is not for low light

[godzilla60]

Originally Posted by TME You really need also to take the weight of a 70-200 f/2.8 into consideration... these lenses are really heavy and hand-holding >2kg over one afternoon is not an easy task. Especially if you're shooting a lot and constantly changing position. I see lots of people with f/2.8 lenses these days (Canons especially) and they tote these lenses around like a fashion accessory... sometimes I wonder, given what they're shooting, if they really need such a long lens and a fast one at that... The 70-300G is really more than adequate for most people... unless you're shooting concerts (in which case you need f/1.7 or faster if flash is not allowed) or high speed action under artificial lighting or night time... otherwise most people seem to be better off with a 24-70 f/2.8 rather than a monster telephoto zoom...

this is quite true...that's why i have not convinced myself to part $$ for a 70-200mm F2.8 yet....at least not yet...haha