I went with the 70-300 predominately for sports photography. The extra reach was imperative and even better when shooting on a a6500. The second hand market here in new Zealand is almost non existent for Sony. Many amateurs/hobbyist's choose to go for the cheaper optioned manufacturers so there is an abundance of Canon and Nikon. The 70-300 struggles in indoor low light action photography so I begrudgingly persevere with what I can afford rather than shoot with what I really need.
You always choose the most relevant comparisons! Love it! Similar size weight price and focal lengths for most people is what they actually compare, unlike "lets compare this 2500 dollar lens with that 800 dollar lens because they both say f/1.4" This helped me a great deal deciding on whether i should head towards a 300mm or a 200mm :).
I own both these lenses and they are both great tools. I completely agree with your excellent review! I use the 70-200 for best image quality, portraits and most things where 200mm is enough reach. The 70-300 is for hiking or traveling when I need a smaller or less obtrusive lens or when reach is a priority. Also I think for landscapes or other low-light situations where one is using a tripod, I find the collar on the 70-200 is a much better balance and produces much less shake. Love your reviews, you really nail it every time!✌️
I also have both lenses. I us the 70-200mm f/4 whenever possible on either my crop sensor or full frame mirrorless cameras. I like the 70-200mm when I am shooting portraits, And yes... The f/4 aperture is wide enough to blur the background when I am shooting with a long focal length. I like the 70-200mm on my A7iii when shooting dos because the 70mm on a crop sensor is often not wide enough.
I never understood why oh why the 70-200 have to be WHITE??? Any ideas about that ? Let it be black,like the body , and it would be perfect. I own the 70-300, and use it for travelling to my satisfaction. Shooting from a driving car on bad roads, and still have very usable shots. My compliments for the builders, it is relatively a older lens..
@@StefanMalloch at the time it was the biggest one to compete against? But why would they hang on to that? I think it is so ugly, they can also add some neon light signs on it,saying Attention please,This is A Very Expensive Lens!!! That's why it is white,so you can't overlook it....
@@normandy2501 I don't know exactly what you'll be shooting. But, in general, I would choose the 70-200 f4 G over the 70-300mm lens. I would also want as fast a lens as I could afford for indoor or low light work. So, the 70-200mm f2.8 GM would be better. You might also look at third party lenses. The Tamron 28-200mm lens is supposed to be good.
I went with the 70-300 predominately for sports photography. The extra reach was imperative and even better when shooting on a a6500.
The second hand market here in new Zealand is almost non existent for Sony. Many amateurs/hobbyist's choose to go for the cheaper optioned manufacturers so there is an abundance of Canon and Nikon.
The 70-300 struggles in indoor low light action photography so I begrudgingly persevere with what I can afford rather than shoot with what I really need.
Can’t wait for you to do a comparison between the Sony 100-400 which you love and the new sigma 100-400
A showdown no doubt!
You always choose the most relevant comparisons! Love it!
Similar size weight price and focal lengths for most people is what they actually compare, unlike "lets compare this 2500 dollar lens with that 800 dollar lens because they both say f/1.4"
This helped me a great deal deciding on whether i should head towards a 300mm or a 200mm :).
Thanks friend! I try to do the stuff that makes sense to me.
I own both these lenses and they are both great tools. I completely agree with your excellent review! I use the 70-200 for best image quality, portraits and most things where 200mm is enough reach. The 70-300 is for hiking or traveling when I need a smaller or less obtrusive lens or when reach is a priority. Also I think for landscapes or other low-light situations where one is using a tripod, I find the collar on the 70-200 is a much better balance and produces much less shake. Love your reviews, you really nail it every time!✌️
Thanks bud
adventure_photo Except the 70-300 in this case isn’t smaller or lighter.
@@StefanMallochalling people “bud” is so trashy people are not dogs, “pal”
Ken Rockwell gave the 70-300 was a great lens but I am leaning towards the 70-200, though I would love the 2.8 but that price is insanity
Just save up a bit. Save 3 bucks a day and you have 1000 a year. Easy!
Thank you for making this video. Keep them coming
Will do!
Very useful review...I need a lens for landscape stills and I guess the 70-200 f 4 will the best choice...thank you so much!
Exactly the video I was needing! Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Sony a6400 + sony 70-200mm f4 combo…thoughts? Picking up the lens next week
Great comparisons! Thanks!!
Thanks for watching!
wow realy awsome lens..one day i will buy a camera..thank you for your vedio bro..nice clicks bro
I also have both lenses. I us the 70-200mm f/4 whenever possible on either my crop sensor or full frame mirrorless cameras. I like the 70-200mm when I am shooting portraits, And yes... The f/4 aperture is wide enough to blur the background when I am shooting with a long focal length. I like the 70-200mm on my A7iii when shooting dos because the 70mm on a crop sensor is often not wide enough.
TYPO: "dogs" not "dos"
I never understood why oh why the 70-200 have to be WHITE??? Any ideas about that ? Let it be black,like the body , and it would be perfect. I own the 70-300, and use it for travelling to my satisfaction. Shooting from a driving car on bad roads, and still have very usable shots. My compliments for the builders, it is relatively a older lens..
No doubt to look like Canons L series.
@@StefanMalloch at the time it was the biggest one to compete against? But why would they hang on to that? I think it is so ugly, they can also add some neon light signs on it,saying Attention please,This is A Very Expensive Lens!!! That's why it is white,so you can't overlook it....
I tried the 70-300mm lens and found that the image quality wasn't up to the 70-200mm f4. The 70-200mm f4 is my travel telephoto lens.
@@normandy2501 I don't know exactly what you'll be shooting. But, in general, I would choose the 70-200 f4 G over the 70-300mm lens. I would also want as fast a lens as I could afford for indoor or low light work. So, the 70-200mm f2.8 GM would be better. You might also look at third party lenses. The Tamron 28-200mm lens is supposed to be good.
Can you please help which lens would be better for the indoor swimming?
Whats your favorite telephoto?
Definitely the 70-200. Just got mine :)
Natürlich das 70-300 !!!
Nice one thanks
Nice review
Hi Stefan, have you checked the new viltrox ii 85mm? Does it convert to 1.6 f?
Please let me know 😊
Also which one should I get..1st or 2nd version? Cheers!
I've only used version 1 which is great. Can't confirm a f1.6 upgrade for version 2.
@@StefanMalloch Thank you!
The more range , the more F ?
Why not 105mm - 300mm F4 zoom ?
So a full set 3 lens of F4 G lens combo
you are looking for unicorn
indonesia hadir
Alles Ansichtssache, ich bin anderer Meinung, habe beide Objektive, deshalb kann ich sagen, dass für mich das 70-300 die bessere Wahl ist !