dfrost01 Loc: Princeton, NJ

I just bought the Sony A6300 and want to purchase a telephoto lens for upcoming trips to Alaska and Africa.

Am looking at the Sony 70-200 and the Sony 70-300 (not yet released) but am having trouble deciding between them. Both are full-frame lenses and the differences seem to be:

70-200 G OSS – f4.0-22 $1400 new
70-300 G OSS - f4.5-29 $1200 new

Both are same weight; 70-300 smaller in size. Am wondering why the new lens would be cheaper. Any thoughts on what else I should look for or how to decide?

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

"G" is great glass. Both are optically stablized. The price difference might be the aperture, one is f4 and the other is f4.5 at 70mm.

I know people that use the G 70-200 lens and like it. When it comes to zoom lenses size is usually an issue. More zoom and smaller size is usually OK.

I am sure either is a great lens.

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

Although I have seen the way you quoted the Aperture range of f-stops for a lens before on a few Technical Specifications sheets, the vast majority of Aperture range specs for zoom lenses, in my experience, state the largest Aperture for both the shortest and longest focal lengths.

In other words, I believe you'll get a better idea by determining what are the max Apertures for the former at 200 mm and the latter at 300 mm. I wager that's where you'll find at least part of the reason why the lens cost a similar amount of $.

lev29 😄😎

bkellyusa Loc: Nashville, TN

I would get the 300mm. I have a 200mm now and it is frustratingly short for taking pictures even at local baseball and football games.

If I could get a 400mm I'd get that and if I could get a 500m I'd get that. In fact, it's hard to get a zoom that's too big.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Personally, I would take a serious look at the Sony FE 24-240mm zoom. I have this zoom and the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 and find the 24-240mm to give me far more versatility and better image quality than the 70-200mm. I find the 70-200mm soft on the edges and in the corners; maybe I just bought a 70-200mm built on a Friday?

On a recent Norway-Iceland cruise, I shot ~4000 pix with the 24-240 on a Sony A7R II and ~500 pix with a 28-70 on a Sony A7S; mainly indoors. Both combos worked very well for me...

bwa

dfrost01 Loc: Princeton, NJ

Thanks. I already bought the 18-105 G lens. That's why I'm looking at the 70-? now.

Tigger1 Loc: Surrey, BC Canada

As you already have a short to mid-range zoom get the longest zoom you are comfortable with both from a budget and physical size consideration. If you are going to Africa to go on safari in any of the East African countries you will definitely want the longest zoom you can fit on your crop sensor Sony and that you can comfortably handle. As a previous responder said, "you can never have enough reach in Africa". As you can see from my tag line below, I have the equivalent FOV of 750mm with my Nikon 200-500mm and there have been times I wish I had more reach than my D5100 and D7200 bodies can provide with the 200-500mm lens! On my up coming Tanzanian/Zambia/South African Safari, I will be renting a Nikon 800mm prime lens to get those few shots that from past safari trips I know just are not achievable with my current collection of lenses. However, having said all of that, please take into consideration such factors as:
Are you travelling exclusively in a safari car?
Are you doing any or all walking safaris?
If in a safari car, are you with a group sharing the car or is the car for your exclusive use, i.e. No use trying to use a 12lb 36" long lens tripod mounted in a safari car that includes 4-6 other people all jostling for a position in the car to take that once in a life time shot of a cheetah, leopard, lion or buffalo!
On the other hand, your 18-105 lens will be the lens of choice capturing a bull elephant shot that is standing 25' from your safari car. When in Alaska off of a cruise my 18-200mm was my lens of choice in 90 percent of my photos. But, on a wildlife Alaska/Yukon shoot, my 200-500 got the most use. I guess there is no magic lens solution, it depends on what you want to do and the tools you have to apply to the task at hand. I wish you all the best with your lens choice(s). What I can say with certainty is you are in for a great experience in any country of Africa, not so much in Alaska, just my opinion.
Garth

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The Sony a6300 was made sturdier than its predecessor the a6000. The a6000 was sold with kit lenses 16-50mm and 55-210mm. I would opt for the 70-300mm and a small lightweight tripod that you can put in carry case. I've heard tripods aren't practical in Africa on this forum.

Tigger1 Loc: Surrey, BC Canada

The practicality of tripod use in Africa depends upon your particular situation. For example: street photography, same situation in any city of North America, sometimes practical sometimes not practical.
Walking safari; again, can be practical depending on the terrain you are walking through and distance you will be walking along with the weight of your kit. If you can afford to hire a porter or porters, then no problem, take all the kit you want.
Safari by car/Land Rover/Land Cruiser: that depends if you are in a group safari or have the interior of the vehicle all to yourself. As I said in an earlier post, if the vehicle is fully loaded, a tripod is not practical as it gets in the way of other passengers and there will be insufficient room to fully setup a tripod. However, if you are the lone occupant along with your driver, then you will have the room for a tripod if your particular vehicle has removable seats in the rear of the vehicle so that your tripod can be properly setup and secured so that it does not tip over while the vehicle is in motion. Most if not all safari roads are not roads in the North American sense of the word road, but are rough, dirt tracks, dusty in dry season and muddy vehicle swallowing mud holes in rainy season. The Boy Scout motto, "Be Prepared" applies!
Garth

alamomike47 Loc: San Antonio, Texas

Just pick up a a6300 and 24-240 lenses. Having bad weather so have not had a chance to use the camera.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Let us know what you think of the combo...

bwa