Sony lens decision
Dec 22, 2019 11:46:43 #
jaycoffman
Loc: San Diego
OK, I have a Sony a7iii. The only lens I have now is the Sony 24-105 f4 G which is a pretty good all around lens but it lacks the reach I want and normally use in my photography. More reach is simply my preferred way of shooting almost everything.
So I'm looking at the Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS. I started photography with a crop frame Nikon with a Tamron 18-400 and I liked that a lot. I'm still getting used to the full frame Sony but I believe that I do not need all the reach of the crop 18-400 to do what I want. I have researched this lens and the reviews are quite good. I cannot justify any of the longer Sony lenses either in cost or weight.
My question is whether anyone has experiences with this lens in the real world. For various reasons I prefer not to rent one before buying. I'm sure somewhere we've discussed this before but I'm hoping for recent experience or opinions. Thanks.
So I'm looking at the Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS. I started photography with a crop frame Nikon with a Tamron 18-400 and I liked that a lot. I'm still getting used to the full frame Sony but I believe that I do not need all the reach of the crop 18-400 to do what I want. I have researched this lens and the reviews are quite good. I cannot justify any of the longer Sony lenses either in cost or weight.
My question is whether anyone has experiences with this lens in the real world. For various reasons I prefer not to rent one before buying. I'm sure somewhere we've discussed this before but I'm hoping for recent experience or opinions. Thanks.
Dec 22, 2019 13:46:11 #
You could maximize the native IQ of your 24-105 and then use the in camera 1.1-2X Clear Image Zoom to take you to 210mm and see how you like it before spending $$$$. I have no experience with the Sony 70-300 but personally, from what I have seen and read I would NOT be optimistic. It is NOT an inexpensive lens IMO. I think I would sooner have the Tamron 100-400 in Canon mount with a Sigma mc11 adapter unless you were doing sports/wildlife and needed the utmost in focus speed/accuracy.
I will be curious to see what others say.
.
I will be curious to see what others say.
.
Dec 22, 2019 14:20:22 #
Ltgk20
Loc: Salisbury, NC
Do you use Lightroom or something similar so you could look back at the focal lengths you shot with most often? If so, this is a good way to figure out how long you need to go. If you're looking for something like an all-in-one, Sony's 24-240 would tempt me. If you want something not-to-big with more range, the 70-300 you're looking at would be best. Personally, when I want to shoot long I'm willing to deal with the weight of the 100-400 in order to achieve the reach and image quality I want. I chose not to adapt any lenses from other mounts as I prefer to have the native AF abilities.
Dec 22, 2019 17:40:39 #
jaycoffman
Loc: San Diego
imagemeister wrote:
You could maximize the native IQ of your 24-105 an... (show quote)
Thanks, I will think about this. But in general I would like at least 400mm on the full frame body. Yes, it is expensive but not as expensive as the other longer Sony lenses and they are heavier.
Dec 22, 2019 17:45:41 #
jaycoffman
Loc: San Diego
Ltgk20 wrote:
Do you use Lightroom or something similar so you c... (show quote)
Yes, I use Lightroom and I agree you have an excellent suggestion because I've done that. While my focal lengths vary somewhat by the trips I take they tended towards the longer end of the 400mm on my crop frame camera before the Sony. I tend to like shooting at the longer end both for street photography and to isolate landscape and wildlife. But I also like carrying just one lens most of the time so I have to make some accommodations. The Sony has good cropping capability as well as good low light capability which are two features I like. As you state--I may have to adjust if I go back to Africa for safari as longer will be better for that so I'll have to deal with the weight some way.
Dec 23, 2019 06:25:37 #
I also use a Sony A7111. Tamron has some great lenses for Sony at about half the cost of the Sony lenses.
I have the Sony 100-400 with a Sony 1.4 tc. Used this combo recently in Kenya. It was awesome.
I have the Sony 100-400 with a Sony 1.4 tc. Used this combo recently in Kenya. It was awesome.
Dec 23, 2019 07:06:44 #
Jeffcs
Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina
You should stick with good glass first of all
Take a peak at the 70-200 F2.8 and consider Sony 2x converter
That said (good glass)
I never thought much of Nikon converters way too much quality loss for me BUT Sony 2X while it isn’t perfect the quality is there
Take a peak at the 70-200 F2.8 and consider Sony 2x converter
That said (good glass)
I never thought much of Nikon converters way too much quality loss for me BUT Sony 2X while it isn’t perfect the quality is there
Dec 23, 2019 07:31:54 #
Jay, I have the Sony FE 70-300 and FE 100-400 that I use with my a7rii and a7rlll. I bought the 70-300 before the 100-400 was available. Originally thought I would sell the 70-300 but decided to keep it as I think it is a better walk-around lens as easier to hand-hold since it is smaller and lighter. I have no complaints about this lens. Sharpness and contrast is just fine. I have not used my 1.4 or 2x converters with this lens.
Dec 23, 2019 07:44:03 #
jaycoffman wrote:
OK, I have a Sony a7iii. The only lens I have now ... (show quote)
I only have two lenses for the Sony a7 m3. A Tamron 28-85 and the Sony 70-300 which you mention. The reviews on this lens are good, and unless you want to count the splines in the feathers of a far away bird in flight, it serves me well. It is a good all around lens, not as sharp as a GM lens, but very acceptable for its size and cost.
Dec 23, 2019 08:36:48 #
jaycoffman wrote:
OK, I have a Sony a7iii. The only lens I have now ... (show quote)
Have both the lenses you mention and find the 70 - 300 to be a very good lens. At my skill level it produces some of my best images. Easy to use and carry. There is a third party tripod foot available on line if you want one.
Dec 23, 2019 09:01:34 #
fetzler
Loc: North West PA
Aside from wildlife, sports and theater productions where close approach is impossible, I think that better photos, in general, can when one can approach the subject more closely. I remember taking a photo class where we had to use a 28mm (35mm film) lens only. The Idea was to learn to get close to you subject. I have a 16-80mm lens for my D7200 and a corresponding lens for micro 4/3. Nearly all photos can be handled by these lenses. Only macro and wildlife require longer lenses.
Dec 23, 2019 09:18:36 #
billbeaulieu
Loc: Montana
jaycoffman wrote:
OK, I have a Sony a7iii. The only lens I have now ... (show quote)
I have a Sony 6500 crop sensor camera and I usually shoot landscape photos. When I want to go longer I have rented lenses from a reputable company like Borrow Lenses to try out the new lens and use it for specific tasks where I need extra reach. The cost for doing this is reasonable and you get the chance to try before you buy. You may find that you don’t need all the length of the longer lens and can settle for something more reasonable. I have shot with the 70-300 Sony lens and have found its reach, even on a crop sensor to be insufficient in speed and reach in low light situations.
Dec 23, 2019 10:25:31 #
I have the Sony A7iii & a Canon 24-105 with a Sigma MC11 adapter. I wanted a native lens with more reach to take to Costa Rica. I rented the Sony 70-300 and also the Sony 70-200 f4. I did a week of test shots - same shot with each lens.
After the head to head comparison, I decided there was a difference in sharpness in the 70-200 shots and purchased that lens.
That said, I also have a "leftover" Sigma 120-400 - my 1st long lens and I use it regularly with the MC11 adapter. It has provided the longer reach and the Sony 70-200 provides better sharpness (and quicker focus). For now, until I can afford a native longer lens, this combination is working for me.
After the head to head comparison, I decided there was a difference in sharpness in the 70-200 shots and purchased that lens.
That said, I also have a "leftover" Sigma 120-400 - my 1st long lens and I use it regularly with the MC11 adapter. It has provided the longer reach and the Sony 70-200 provides better sharpness (and quicker focus). For now, until I can afford a native longer lens, this combination is working for me.
Dec 23, 2019 10:26:17 #
The Sony24-240, when set to Clear Image Zoom will get you 480. It is my walk about lense, albeit a bit heavy. It is a fairly sharp lense.
Dec 23, 2019 10:48:59 #
I have both the 24-105 and the 70-300 for my A7 III. Both are great lenses and I have no negative comments about either. I do have a complaint, however. The f/4 for zoom lenses in the Sony line is somewhat limiting. My 24-105 has decent low light capabilities, but I find times when I really need better than f/4. Sony, of course has faster prime lenses, but cheapskate me is unwilling to purchase a lens whose focal length is already covered by one of my zooms.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.