Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS sample gallery

This lens does have the linear AF motor which is much faster than the traditional style. But I think it’s still no match for the most recent GM lenses AF speed wise.

8 months agopermalink

QuietOC

Sony also limits AF-C during bursts to the LO frame rate with the LA-EA adapters. Many users are unaware that the focus will lock at the first frame when using faster frame rates. There's no warning about it.

8 months agopermalink

That’s not correct. In AF-C with any FF Somy camera released in the last 4 years the LA-EA3 adapter will allow the camera and lens to AF-C and burst as fast as possible. Most legacy lenses can do 10FPS. Some can go faster. The LA-EA4 adapter for screw drive lenses has its own AF system and it works differently.

Of course all of this is completely irrelevant to a discussion about an E-Mount lens like the subject lens.

8 months ago*permalink

QuietOC

Another unaware person. Sony discloses this limitation in several places, but doesn't advertise it. https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00059736

8 months ago*permalink

Yes we know the limitations of the adapter, the LEA4 is outdated and not good enough, so a user has hacked it removing the mirror we expect to be able to bypass some of the issues.
Sad Sony didn't bother no wonder the few A mount hold outs stick to their bodies, Sony did a bad job on providing a good adapter

8 months agopermalink

Yes there are a few really old screw drive lenses around that suffer because they can only be used with the LA-EA4.

And QuietOC you didn’t read very well. As I said all FF cameras released in the last 4 years don’t have this limitation. This is supported by the link you posted. You are trying to confuse people and intentionally mislead. Don’t you see “YES” across the board for all cameras in the first 7 rows? That’s what I see.

You guys love to bring up old outdated information and intentionally imply it applies to current cameras.. you are being disingenuous. I guess I should expect it from you.

8 months ago*permalink

Replace "few" with a lot. Many of the A Mount lenses are screw driven, not just the old Minolta ones. Even some Zeiss top end ones were screw driven.
The user hack for the LEA4 is effective no mirror, it works with screw drive lenses with native camera phase detect, it's not quite ready yet
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SonyAlphaTalk/permalink/1388000578057048/

What is scary is a lone dude is doing what Sony should have done years ago

8 months agopermalink

When that LA-EA4 was initially released SEVEN years ago, it was pretty good.. you’re judging it now based on A9 level AF with 693 PDAF points and 20FPS burst capabilities. If you are spending bucks to buy the latest cameras I think it’s not unreasonable to expect that lenses would make sense to be upgraded as well.

Anyway the LA-EA4 WILL AF-C with the bodies from the last 4 years according to the chart QuietOC posted. And I STILL don’t get how this is relevant to the sample gallery above.

8 months agopermalink

You miss the point dude. A mount customers are also Sony customers. Some lame old 15 point AF adapter is worse than the 2011 A77 (19 point with more cross sensors). The A77ii brought 79 point AF
Ain't exactly going to appeal to the users who are left, you're better off using your old A mount gear. And how much money do Sony make off Canon users with adapters? Or third party lenses bought for the system?
Saying you should buy new lenses, great you can buy them need a pretty big credit card to pay for that. Ya look after your customers and that includes Sony, else you end up with a half baked bad adapter which appeals to not that many.

8 months agopermalink

People are getting better performance with an LA-EA4 adapter than they were with their old A77’s... I guess it’s whether you expect continuous improvement for an old lens adapted to a new camera body with a different mount using a 7 year old adapter. Are you suggesting Sony should release another updated adapter for their legacy screw drive lenses?

I hate to think of what you think about Nikon’s adapter strategy.

8 months agopermalink

Sony should release an updated adapter of course no question, not exactly much going on with A Mount. Don't want to leave your users with a bad feeling or buying another brand do you?
Nikon badly need an adapter for screw drive lenses too, we'll see if they man up and provide one.
It's not about continuous improvements, we see a single dude hack an adapter and provide phase detect AF with screw drive lenses no mirror. How is that a bad thing? The LEA4 was never going to cut it you're not getting better AF with the LEA4 v the A77 and def not with the A77ii both have more cross sensors and the 79 point is erm well a bit more coverage than the 15 point one. Ain't that hard to do as we can see

8 months agopermalink

BrentSchumer

Kind of a joke at $1,300. You can pick up the Sigma 100-400mm for less.

8 months ago*permalink

DMalcolm

True, they need to drop the price - they had the native mount tele zoom lens market to themselves for too long.

8 months agopermalink

Brent the sigma didn’t exist when this was released 4 years ago. It’s a completely different market now fortunately with many lens choices for E-Mount. This lens really isn’t competitive today

8 months agopermalink

hfolkertsma

Completely different form factor though. Have you held the Sigma yet, it’s noticeably larger. And for some, the 70mm might be more appealing than the 400. Especially with higher res sensors.

8 months agopermalink

BrentSchumer

MikeRan I agree, but Sony hasn't dropped its price despite presumably recouping R&D. Alternately, they could refine the lens.

8 months agopermalink

DenImage

The newly announced Sigma FE 100-400mm is the better alternative to this old lens.

Den

8 months agopermalink

brendon1000

Its a much bigger, heavier and slower lens. Good value for those who need 400mm but if I was on the lookout for a good tele zoom lens I would choose the 70-300mm anyday. If I was shooting wildlife then the Sigma makes more sense.

8 months agopermalink

Platinumkid

The difference between 850g and 1100g is not that big. Even smaller is the difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3. When you add the longer reach and the $350 price difference, I would take the Sigma

8 months agopermalink

Bigsensorisbest

For shooting people and models? You mean it’s better for you.

6 months agopermalink

Becksvart

To people comparing with for-mirror-lenses: those tend to be cheaper, I don't know why, Canon's new offerings are certainly in their own sphere compared to most EF lenses of similar specs.

As for this FE specimen, I did enjoy some of the sample photos but received quite a lot of negative feedback for suggesting the FE 70-200 / 4 as an alternative to the Tamron 70-180 f/2,8 due to the latter's pricing in Europe so I'm not sure why Sarman would recommend it. In this instance the Sigma FE 100-400 for Sony E isn't actually overpriced severely in Europe compared to the States and it is cheaper than this lens new and from what I've seen from it so far there isn't a chance I'd purchase this FE 70-300.

8 months agopermalink

cxsparc

Found the link on pawel online matterhorn:
https://pawel.online/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/20170710-ILCE-6500-DSC07286-1200x800.jpg

8 months agopermalink

Dave Oddie

If this lens is as good as the A mount version which I own it is a very good lens. Mine is sharp at F5.6 @ 300mm and guess what? The much cheaper Tamron some might suggest using on E mount via an adaptor is not.

Mind you I didn't pay anything like full price for my lens which was equally expensive in A mount as this E mount version (I got it form a camera shop that was closing down in a sale for less than half price).

8 months agopermalink

cxsparc

Great to see some pre C19 photos showing living outside.
On the other hand, it also points out to me how useful a 18-105 on APSC is, since most of the shots shown could have been made with that lens or the also good 18135 at a fraction of cost and weight.
Maybe I am just not the super-tele guy? A shot of a small section of a mountain peak without context just lacks the latter. I have seen a shot of a snow-covered peak with minute hikers on the ledge, ok. But it seems rare to justify such a lens to me

8 months agopermalink

SteveCooper

This is an excellent example of why I didn't switch to Sony for a ML camera and waited for Nikon to come out with a ML body. This lens sells for $1,273.00 and a comparable Nikon AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR Lens sells for less than half that price. With the FTZ adapter (which works very well BTW), there was no reason for me to lose huge amounts of money by switching systems.

8 months agopermalink

Old Cameras

Nikon’s 70-300 is a gem, a bargain and a must have and you save $673. It’s like getting the superlative Z 50/1.8S for free with lunch money left over.

8 months agopermalink

quatpat

Wait until Nikon's 70-300mm Z-mount comes out, it won't be the same price as the F-mount AF-P either.

8 months agopermalink

Magnar W

@ SteveCooper: What about AF speed and precision. Might be worth the extra money for some.

8 months agopermalink

panther fan

If you already have lenses that often makes the system choice very easy.

That said, I know nobody that is happy long term with adapters. They are only a stop-gap solution and eventually, native lenses are always the way to go. And here the unfortunate truth is that all mirrorless system demand about the same lens prices. Nikon was never the bargain company and probably never will be.

I think the best deal currently in the mirrorless world is the Sigma 100-400mm F6.3 DN. It overcomes all the weaknesses of the DSLR version in a nice package. Let's hope Sigma releases it in other mounts as well

8 months agopermalink

FuhTeng

Magnar - I find no differences in AF speed using my AFP 70-300 on Z6 versus my D850, but the AF precision is predictably better on the Z6.

8 months agopermalink

Magnar W

@ FuhTeng: Then imageine what action those using Sony cameras and this native lens can follow!

8 months agopermalink

Magnar,
Read the posts from people who bought this lens. It is not very fast to focus. A number sold it and bought the faster 70-200/4.
The truth is some native lenses are faster and some are slower. Nikon and Canon have done an excellent job getting their fast DSLR lenses to work as fast or faster on their mirrorless systems. Just as FuhTeng pointed out.

8 months agopermalink

Magnar W

@ Sarman 2525: Well, this lens is well known to me, first hand experience. Compact, sharp, nice close-up range, and fast AF with series III or newer cameras.

8 months agopermalink

Its basically a good $400 lens or average $550 lens. Similar to the Nikon, Canon, and Tamron. Similar to the A mount SSM II version too,

Not a good value for its price which is why as you know so many prefer the Sony 70-200/4 even with cropping. It focuses faster and is sharper.

8 months ago*permalink

panther fan

@Sarman 2525

Well, that's a bit unfair the Sony is a lot sharper than the old Sony, the Tamron and better than the Canon L lens that costs the same.
It also has a better close focus ability than those. And you old second gen body AF reports are blown out of proportion.

Yes it is definetly priced a little high, especially compared to the 100-400 options. But it's not a bad lens

8 months agopermalink

Calphate

This lens has some sample variation issue. If you get a good copy it's much sharper than the competition and justifies the price tag. If not... well. Probably should just go for the new Sigma 100-400. Sony made some aggressive design in the past years that they can't even manufacture properly.

8 months agopermalink

kribee2

A Sony lens with sample variations ? come on...

8 months agopermalink

RubberDials

Wow, this gallery has come out of nowhere.

Is this Dale's sneaky way of getting a worldwide audience for his holiday photos?

I think we should be told... :)

8 months agopermalink

I thought it was a mistake actually. Maybe it was a gallery for the 70-350 crop lens. Or maybe some website error that a 4 year old story got reposted as new. I guess not. I’m surprised there’s no mention in the text to indicate the lens has been on the market for more than 4 years.

8 months ago*permalink

Dale Baskin

That would be quite a conspiracy just to publish my holiday photos ;)

This lens has been out for a few years, but for one reason or another, we never published a sample gallery for it. We know that a lot of people researching lenses online look at our galleries, so this posting this gallery will still be helpful to them – even if most of the photos were taken a couple years ago.

8 months ago*permalink

RubberDials

@Dale

Maybe time to suggest a couple of weeks off to fill some more of those gaps in the sample galleries...

8 months agopermalink

For those unaware, this lens was announced in March 2016 and began shipping shortly thereafter.

8 months agopermalink

panther fan

I don't know how I feel about that lens. It was good when it was the only option past 300mm in the system. But now with all the new tele lenses it seems a bit out of place. It should either be cheaper or offer something truly unique like a vastly smaller size

8 months agopermalink

Amazon says the lens is $1,273.00. It performs about the same as a $300 Tamron 70-300 or $500 Canon or Nikon 70-300.
The lens is reminiscent of the Sony A mount 70-200/2.8 that has no IS, is medicocre vs its peers, and had the the highest price of any 70-200/2.8 at $3000.

8 months agopermalink

Deleted. Not worth it.

8 months ago*permalink

Old Cameras

Agreed, and that is a ridiculous price. The Nikon 70-300 f-mount, which is very good, is $600 all day long.
They’re smoking something.

8 months agopermalink

brendon1000

Yeah obvious troll. Best to simply ignore :)

8 months agopermalink

entoman

Its official price in the UK is £999 (after taxes and £100 cashback).

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM official price in UK is £449.

So yes, I have to agree that the Sony is somewhat overpriced, but Sarman, why do you apparently get such a kick out of slamming everything that Sony produce. Let Sony owners be happy with their purchases.

8 months ago*permalink

PAntunes

How much is the canon 70-300L again?

8 months agopermalink

Entropy512

Which is why I've got a Tamron SP 70-300 + Metabones IV.

There are only a few corner cases where the Sony solution's better AF is actually beneficial to me, and the Metabones' cost also benefits a few other lenses in my inventory.

8 months agopermalink

brendon1000

Guys the Canon 70-300mm IS lens is from 2005. Its 15 years old already. Compare something newer than that old lens to a modern lens.

8 months agopermalink

entoman

PAntunes - Prices in the UK:

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM - £1259.
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM - £449.
Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS - £999.
Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6E ED VR AF-P - £535.

I offer no comment on the performance of any of them, just the prices.

8 months agopermalink

Have to admit at 300mm it's not exactly stellar, even stopped down. I'd say the Tamron/Nikon would probably be better optically
Surprised low contrast and IMO not worth the asking price 50% cheaper at best

8 months agopermalink

merkator

Yes, Sony is too overpriced. I would like to see Tamron SP 70-300 for E-mount, it's a nice and sharp lens for the reasonable price.

8 months agopermalink

BrentSchumer

Overpriced and mediocre is common with the early Sony FE lenses. Most sane people will buy Tamron or Sigma over early FE lenses, and hopefully Sony revises some of its less exotic lenses.

8 months agopermalink