Must say, I disagree with this review and the final verdict. Having owned both the 70-200 f4 and the 70-300, I can confidently say that I didn't notice any truly noticeable difference in autofocus or sharpness. My Rii tracked skiers perfectly using this lens. Add this to one of the upgraded autofocus systems in a newer camera and I'm sure the results will be much better. Truthfully, I found the 70-300 to be much more enjoyable to use. It is lighter, smaller, packs easier, has more zoom range, is just as sharp and stands out less. If you are looking for a decent travel lens, I would recommend this over the 70-200 f4 all day. The Tamron 70-180 will be a game changer, however.
I agree you disagree..i disagree with the reviewer on the plastic, autofocus and stabilization which are good to my opinion. I choose the tamron 70-300 for the price and the weight 545g. But personally i think The sony at 750/800 US $ would be a good. The tamron 70-300 except lack of corner sharpness at 70mm 4.5 is pretty good from other reviewers. I will receive it next week. Like the sony it is a lens for the outside, and 300mm is important for wildlife and landscape. 200mm is limited. With sony a7c you can get even up to 450mm with the tamron with super 35 mode in video 4k and pictures 10MP and you can reach 900mm with clearzoom x2 in jpeg mode only 10MP.
I agree that Sony lenses are pricey in UK, but I have never had a moment of regret about buying this one. I have to say you have got it badly wrong in your review. This lens is absolutely superb. Fantastic IQ and sharp with it. Super fast autofocus too. I only take it off my Sony A7iii or A6300 when I want a wider FOV.
As an a9 user, I prefer to use the Canon 70-300 IS II Nano USM with an MC-11. The combo can still achieve 10fps reliably with support for Real-time AF, eye Af, etc.
Foto4Max I bet the 100-400 is better. Well, it must be since it costs 2500! Having a Sigma MC-11 (super handy to try other Canon lenses) costs 150, and it’s not hard to find the Canon 70-300 for 400, so, 550 for me is FAR better than 2500 since I am not a heavy telephoto user.
@SwitchRich For me yes, perfectly acceptable. If you see the Canon lens review from Chris Frost you can see it is a very nice lens. I am not a super telephoto connoisseur and I bet that the 100-400 and the new 200-600 are better, sure. But also 3x more expensive, so, they MUST be better to justify the cost. In my case I have the MC-11 always glued to the 70-300 and it is awesome, and when I go on photo walks with friends with Canon cameras and lenses I can always play with their lenses too, so, win-win :D
@SwitchRich Yea. I think the 70-200 F4 is a better lens by far in terms of image quality and sharpness. You loose the 200-300 telephoto end, but you gain speed (F4) and "L mount" red ring goodness :D... I personally went with the 70-300 because I found one used really cheap, but if I was between both on the same price range I would definitely go with the 70-200 F4, but, again, I am not a telephoto heavy user so I don't care about the long range loss...
Hi Chris, great review from you as always. Thanks for the review and for sharing. If I may make a suggestion. For a telephoto zoom lens such as this one, you really need to test it at close range (test chart) as well as near infinity focus (photographic a football match for instance) to get a complete picture of its capability.
Value for the dollar is the main issue here. I think this lens would be acceptable in the $500-600 range but not for what is being asked for it. One of my favorite lenses is the Canon 55-250 for aps-c. It usually goes for $250-300 but bought my grey market copy off of Amazon for only $169. For that price (or even its normal retail price) it is an incredible value.
@@randydietmeyer5883 for the 35mm f/1.8 it's actually has $ 100++ price difference between US and the rest of the world. The tarrif could make lenses 20% pricier petapixel.com/2019/07/19/sonys-fe-35mm-f-1-8-lens-is-cheaper-in-canada-are-trump-tariffs-to-blame/
Sony's new APS-C G zoom lens offerings would be awesome to see. I'm especially curious of the 16-55 F2.8 G. Bummer about loosing the APS-C photos for this one, but I think I have a feel for how it would be. Love the videos!
planecrazy2 I’ve heard that this lens’s performance on APS-C sensors is actually not great. What I like bout Chris’s reviews are the testing of FF lenses on real APS-C bodies, because as he’s shown over and over, the real world performance often is a surprise after looking at FF results. I expect that Sony’s new 70-350mm for APS-C will significantly outperform this lens on an APS-C camera.
@@dasaauto2024 I agree. It can be a surprise in a good way or a bad way. A few times I decided to pick up a FF lens for use on APS-C for the improved image quality or because a quality equivalent APS-C version didn't exist.
@@dasaauto2024 My experiences using this lens (the 70-300 G) on my APS-C cameras has been excellent. The autofocus at 300mm with fast moving subjects (wildlife video and photography) has impressed me. That being said used examples of the lens are fetching $1500 Canadian dollars and the new 70-350 can be had for $1000. For the extra reach and smaller form factor I'll sell to someone shooting FF and buy the 70-350. The $500 will go some way to the 9 mm Laowa I'd like.
I agree, the price of this lens is just ridiculous and the same story is with those new zooms for APS-C Sony cameras. Speaking of which, are you planning to do a review of them when they are released? :)
@Ziggi Mon how do you know canon is better ? remember the test done here for Canon is with fullframe 20mp camera, when sony is 42mp. That is why canon looks better. If you reckon, then you can try mount canon lens in Sony body to see if it is up to sony 70-300 quality. However I still think sony is overpriced, it should be at half or 2/3 of the current price at max.
I have had this lens for a while and I like it very much. Yes, it's not perfect but It's good enough for 99% of people. The mentioned 70-200 f4 is not as sharp as this lens from what I have seen in reviews and lacks the reach. The 100-400 should be superior in every way but much more expensive, big and heavy. So not ideal for travel.
I used to love this lens and think it got a bad rap, but I accidentally trashed my 100-400GM (and my RIII with it...) and have been waiting for Sony to give me an estimate of the cost of repair. In the meantime I've been shooting with the 70-300G again on the RIV because I can "gain" that extra focal-length shooting in crop at 26mp, and it's really night and day IQ-wise. From 70mm to ~200mm it's actually quite tack sharp for me, especially in the center, but most people are here for what it can do at 200-300mm and maybe I was spoiled by the 100-400GM but it's... lacking unfortunately. I will say, the AF is really fast on the RIV and the RIII. I also have the RII and it's indeed the camera not the lens.
Great review, as always. Thank you! I really like your objectivity and honest opinions. I'm becoming really tired and somehow unhappy seeing al those although fine reviewers, becoming slowly but certainly just selling platforms for the big names in the industry... I understand that objectivity doesn't always put a bread on the table, but I can't stop hoping that maybe, somebody still has principles in this world. I would consider to contribute some kind of subscription plan, in order to monetize your activity and help you keep your independence. Best wishes!
Seeing more positive product reviews shouldn't be seen as suspect either. The market is demanding that everything be a much higher quality than it used to be.
Honestly, it seems to me that literally all Sony lenses are overpriced. It's the classic razor and blade model - they lure you in with great looking cameras on paper, then rob you buy forcing you to buy their lenses. It's a good thing there's competitive third party lenses for the system that cost less than half the price. (I'm talking about you 24-70 2.8 GM)
There're a few exceptions like 85/1.8 and 28/2, but yeah, I think the majority of the lenses that supposed to be cheap (24-105 and 70-300 for instances) are overpriced.
Not a Sony user here but they seem awfully proud of some of their lenses. They make tremendous cameras and they have overtaken Nikon and Canon in that race. I still use Canon and did not have a lot of glass invested so I went with 3rd party with Sigma and IRIX but I am entertaining the idea of 15-30, 24-70 and a 70-200 in the G2 line from Tamron. I own a Canon AE-1, AT-1, RP and 6D which in reality are entry level compared to a modern Sony but I taught myself on that AT-1 back in 1980 so I have been a Canon user since then but enough rambling another great video and presentation by Christopher.
Btw, have you ever considered doing a series for testing vintage lenses on the Sony body? They can be adapted to the Sony mount really cheap. Could make a great series for cheapskates like myself. For example, I've just picked up a Canon FD 70-210 F4 (with secret macro mode) for £50 second hand, with a £20 FD-NEX adapter. A £70 alternative to this £1000 beast.
I've done that a few times - the problem is that the lens coatings were very weak and so they do badly in contrast and flare. Fine if you want soft b/w shots but they don't compare with even cheap modern lenses objectively.
Great review! Thank you for your review it was excellent. Yes I had both and kept the 70-300mm. Main reason because I like the longer reach, 2nd because it is smaller and 3rd because the closeup distance is a alot better. Also, the Nano lens coatings are amazing and I believe a better overall build quality . . .
oh yeah, overpricing with Sony products is a huge issue in my region as well (for example a6400+16-50 was about $240 higher than official announced price), and mid-range salaries is about 400 euros per months
Thanks for another informative video. Im hoping you will be reviewing the newly announced samyang 18mm f2.8 af soon. I know you liked the other lenses in that series :)
Great video. Thank for reminding Sony again to stop those foolish price differences between the US and Europa. Same for the A7iii. 2000 USD vs 2300 Euros. Even taking the taxes in consideration the gap is enormous. And for this lens: it really points out the big problem with the Sony FF eco system. Great (somewhat) affordable cameras with extremely expensive overpriced lenses. Same for the 100-400 which is really good but at 2800 Euros way too expensive. Fortunately Tamron joined the party. I already own the 28-75 and am really waiting for their upcomming telelens.
Thank you for making this video. I was actually considering this one, but after having watched your review, I think I'll just save up for a 100-400 to use on my A7 III... or just get the 70-200 f/4 and get closer to my subject.
I compared this lens to my Canon 70-200 f4 IS on my 70D. Sony 70-300 OSS on my Sony a6000. My subjective experience was that the Canon had much better sharpness and color. Sent it back.
I own it and happy to use it .good light zoom for traveling .it is sharp lens and has great optics .Sony 100-400 and 200-600 are great but heavy and more expensive and I will not prefer them for travel purpose ,they are specific for sports and wildlife .
As usual you make excellent review. Simple and efficient! I will be curious to see your opinion of the 24-240 f3.5-6.3 it is a lot of different opinion about this lens. I have not been able to test it in different condition to be able to see if I will keep it or not. My Camera is an A7RIII. Thank you.
Nice video. Bro do you have a comparision video for 24 240 vs 70 300. In the light that we need to know how good it can be for sports also. Flood lights and day shots. Plus portraits. Maybe macro shots for insects or flowers
Hi Chris, I wanted to know that which one did you find sharper, Viltrox 85mm f1.8 or Samyang 85mm f1.8 for Fuji (I know you reviewed the Samyang for Sony but I believe they must share the same optics, right?). By the way, vert practical and informative reviews. Thanks
I currently use the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS nano usm II with the Sigma MC-11 on my A7 III and it seems to perform quite well particularly with regard to AF speed and accuracy however I was thinking of replacing it with this Sony 70-300 so as to do away with the mount converter but after seeing your review I think I'll stick with what I have and save some pennies. Both the Sony 70-200 f4 and the upcoming Tamron 70-180 might also have been possible contenders, again so I could lose the MC-11 converter, but the focal lengths are just too short for my purposes.
Price is not crazy for that long of a reach and it is full frame and AF and OSS. I would love for it to be cheaper, but is there competition at a lower price?
Hi Christopher! How would you compare this lens to the Tamron 70-300 Di Ld VC? I already own this for a Nikon DSLR. Apart from the fact I will have to use it with an adaptor for the sony camera, how would you compare them, image quality wise? The price is pretty steep.
I forgot about this comment, thanks for making a review on it! I now have one of my very own (einfinity.com) I got it £200 off cause it's from the grey market (they import it for a lower price and u don't have a manufacturer warranty but they give u one)
I currently have the Canon EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS II with a Sigma MC-11 adapter. The AF when on my A7 mk3 is really fast and IQ is very good. I keep thinking I should maybe get a native zoom instead but reviews like this one have so far stopped me. The cost of this Sony lens is prohibitive when you consider the reviews in general reflect the lack of IQ and build quality combined with a very silly price. I do have the Sony 200-600 G lens which is excellent so they can make top quality, reasonably priced optics but this isn't one of them.
If I may ask a question, I’m starting a graphic design with photography course soon and will also be doing studio and fashion shoots. I have a canon 80d and think the main two lenses for this will be my Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 art and Canon 50mm 1.8. Would you recommend a sigma 50/85 art or something else?
I disagree with several points. First plastic does not mean bad quality. Tamron also use plastic because it resist well to outdoor condition. Two, who expect a stabilizer that would give you a complete static image on any lens?. The stabilization is equal to any other lens in the category. If you want static image, they have invented something called a tripod...i also doubt of the fact 5e autofocus would be unpar...i think several person would easily confirm that..finally the only thing i agree is the price is steep. I would see much more 800 US dollars, a bit like the sigma 100-400. The tamron at 499$ is very good value despite no stabilization (rely on ibis), and less of sharpness in the corner at 70mm f4.5. But it is extremely lightweight at 545g which makes it good for hiking. If the sony was around750/800 US dollars, it would be better.
Thanks Chris! Now I cannot complain anymore :-D the review i was waiting for :) Unfortunatelly - the autofocus is a deal breaker. I shoot extreme sports so the aperture was pushing me to the edge already, but unreliable AF sealed the deal. Thanks CHris, you saved me a LOT of money, but mainly A LOT of frustration :) I cannot thank you enough :)
Hi, Greetings from Canada. I am planning on buying a telephoto lens. Sony 70-350 is now cheaper (900 CAD). I also have my eyes on Tamaron 70-180 f2.8. but that one doesn't have IIS. Would you please do a review on the Tamaron and a comparison if possible. I'd be delighted. Thanks
Do your prices include tax? In the US, the advertised price does not include tax. The tax that you pay depends on where you live (or really, where you buy the product), but could be anywhere from 0% to nearly 9.5%. I think in the UK, you pay VAT? Does your quoted price include VAT or not include it?
Da Iawn Christopher! Yet another great review, as I've said before you are the best at this across all TH-cam channels so keep it up. This lens seems to be a real let-down, it's not a G Master lens but goodness knows how much that would cost! As for myself, I'm more than happy with my Canon L glass and I can't imagine switching systems although I am considering an EOS R with adaptor to shrink my kit down just a little!
I can recommend the 18 135 Sony lens. Used it like 2 months now and Im very impressed. Super sharp for a zoom and Light as hell. Not the brightest, but ok for me, got the sigma 16 and 30 f1. 4 for low Light.
I would love to see that comparison but safe to say that the 70-350 would blow the 55-210 away. The 55-210 is softer than a baby's behind at the long end. And the comparison is really unfair given the price difference.
Pretty much the same, maybe a hair better if you get a good copy. When I moved to Sony, my Canon 70-300 L lens had serious focus issues with an adapter so got the Sony equivalent instead. Paid £750 for it on eBay and I think it's worth that price. However if your planning on buying it brand new the price tag is a bit steep, so I'd probably way up some more options like the 100-400.
Not really. The 70-350 APS-C lens is lighter (by >200g), has a smaller build, has a smaller filter size (67 instead of 72mm) and is less expensive. Basically tailored for the APS-C line-up.
As usual with Sony, this is a relatively expensive lens. I think the review dams this lens with faint praise. Sigma have been a runaway success with apsc primes. Are there inherent design complexities with apsc bodies? If not, I am a little puzzled as to why Sigma has not sought to replicate its runaway success in prime offerings by offering excellent quality and attractively priced zooms.
I surely miss the days that I'm single and pretty much can just buy whatever lens/body I wanted to test out... lol. Anyways, $1000 is way too high a price for this thing.
@Suzy CreamcheeseI'm not comparing them on an aps-c camera. That is just how DXO mark rated them. I do plan on going full frame. I didn't want to invest a lot of money in aps-c lenses. I'm waiting for the a7siii to come out. Hopefully it will be soon.
That is not correct, this lens has a score of 26, the 70-200 scored a 34. Dxo mark also mentions in the review that the sharpness on the 70-200 is better.
The “Sony must hate us in the UK” line that accompanies most Sony lens reviews isn’t exactly accurate. There are reasons why Sony feels the need to charge more in the UK to make the same margin on their products as in the US market, for instance. Currency exchange rates, laws regarding stricter warranties and customer protections and the overall cost of doing business in the UK seem to make up most of the difference in price. Sony wouldn’t simply “overprice” their products just because they think they can gouge UK customers-that would be a nonsensical business decision given that competition exists from other manufacturers there, just as it does in other markets. I don’t know why people point straight at companies when products appear “overpriced” instead of trying to understand why just about everything is “overpriced” in the country they live in. Australians and Canadians do this frequently as well. I can understand the frustration, but it’s a bit naive not to take into account the whole scenario before claiming that certain multinational companies hate you. In the US we’re seeing a significant premium on recently released Sony lenses (compared to a Canadian prices, for instance) and this really has nothing to do with Sony hating us, but the absolute buffoonery that’s taking place in the trade war that our current administration decided to start. (Good to know it’ll be an “easy win,” however. /s)
Rent a Nikon body and test Nikon AF-P 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6E. It's 579 pounds on British Amazon. It would be REALLY interesting what's the difference at half the price ;)
It will work. All e-mount lenses work on all e-mount cameras. Some cameras have smaller sensors than the normal 35mm, but the mount and functionality is the same. Lenses that are made for the smaller sensors tend to be sharper to go with the smaller sensors, but most full frame lenses are sharp enough.
Dude... Sony lens prices is the only reason why I went with Fujifilm instead. Practically half the price, while performing pretty much the same or better.
The only Fuji lens you could compare this to would be in the XF series and they are all considerably more money than this Sony. Where are you getting this half price idea from? The XF 100-400 is almost double the price. Even the 50-140 is $300 more, but at least a constant aperture.
@@ChairmanZhongXiNa you're comparing APS-C lenses to the cost of this professional full frame lens. You're not going to go run around in a rain forest with XC lens. Sony has a cheap tele lenses for APS-C as well (like the 55-210 for less than $400).
@@chosenideahandle yes but are they as high quality as Fujifilm's offering? All I'm saying is that Sony largely doesn't care about budget lenses, and the ones they have aren't as good as Fujifilm's
@@ChairmanZhongXiNa No, Sony's budget lenses are not built as well as Fuji's. You do however pay more, not less for that quality. A lot of people throw around how much cheaper Fuji is, but from my experience it's just not the case. I do love all their stuff though. If the 100-400 were affordable I would own an X-T3.
@@chosenideahandle i was considering that but reviews are not out yet. And im more or less will be upgrading to full frame. That's why i don't invest on aps-c lenses
@@peterpaul195 gotcha. I'm currently shooting with this lens (the 70-300) on my a6400. I find it works very well with the improvements in the new APS-Cs. I may go full frame myself, so I'm still holding onto my full frame glass. There might be more disadvantages than advantages if I go full frame because I do wildlife and landscape. I get great reach and pixel density with APS-C for wildlife, and I could actually shoot wider than with any full frame Sony lens for landscape because of the Laowa 9 mm 2.8. The 9 mm also accepts threaded 49 mm filters, and I'd have to carry around a filter frame system if I wanted a full frame lens that's 14mm.
Hello from Kyiv Ukraine. Yes this lens is very bad and very expensive for something I would say is like a kit lens. I am a Sony shooter and for my work I use A9 and A7 III but I have the A7R III for some commercial work that would need the high resolution. Sony make very good cameras but the lens line up I feel they make very good lenses or very bad lenses and nothing in the middle. I own a lot of Sony lenses but I have chosen carefully by first borrowing a lens to try before I buy because it will save an expensive mistake. Thank god for Tamron and Samyang. Samyangs 85mm and 35mm AF F1.4 s after the recent firmware updates are as good as native for stills and the 85mm is close if not the same as the GM in my opinion. I am also very pleased with the little 45mm AF F1.8. Tamron s 17 to 28mm and 28 to 75mm are in my opinion better than the Sony equivalents and in a recent promo video I see there is a 3rd zoom lens to be announced which I think is the 70 to 200mm (or around that focal range) which I am excited about. The video also shows 3 other lenses which I think are primes. Let us hope Tamron bring to the table some excellent primes. I hope Samyang decide to create a 135mm F1.8 that will compete with the Sony.
@@christopherfrost but you could use it on full frame but you would just have 11mp, and a crop, and less deapht of field, but you get that 525mm reach tho, and it's cheaper, and newer faster af, and smaller..... You see my point 🤕🤕
Why is it every reviewer needs to recite everything already known from the manufacturer specs, and tell us what OSS is good for. Hello? Just skip to the performance, we can read the rest on the internet.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Must say, I disagree with this review and the final verdict. Having owned both the 70-200 f4 and the 70-300, I can confidently say that I didn't notice any truly noticeable difference in autofocus or sharpness. My Rii tracked skiers perfectly using this lens. Add this to one of the upgraded autofocus systems in a newer camera and I'm sure the results will be much better. Truthfully, I found the 70-300 to be much more enjoyable to use. It is lighter, smaller, packs easier, has more zoom range, is just as sharp and stands out less. If you are looking for a decent travel lens, I would recommend this over the 70-200 f4 all day. The Tamron 70-180 will be a game changer, however.
I agree you disagree..i disagree with the reviewer on the plastic, autofocus and stabilization which are good to my opinion. I choose the tamron 70-300 for the price and the weight 545g. But personally i think The sony at 750/800 US $ would be a good. The tamron 70-300 except lack of corner sharpness at 70mm 4.5 is pretty good from other reviewers. I will receive it next week. Like the sony it is a lens for the outside, and 300mm is important for wildlife and landscape. 200mm is limited. With sony a7c you can get even up to 450mm with the tamron with super 35 mode in video 4k and pictures 10MP and you can reach 900mm with clearzoom x2 in jpeg mode only 10MP.
In my experience, that lens is one of the best when it comes to autofocus. I use it with my A7III. It is extremely fast.
im looking for a type of lens like this one, is ok for video or photo animals? using the A7iii as videomaker, thanks for any tips
I have the same experience. Very fast autofocus
Same here. I have had surprisingly amazing results
The a7r2 focusing is what sucks
I agree that Sony lenses are pricey in UK, but I have never had a moment of regret about buying this one. I have to say you have got it badly wrong in your review. This lens is absolutely superb. Fantastic IQ and sharp with it. Super fast autofocus too. I only take it off my Sony A7iii or A6300 when I want a wider FOV.
Hope you'll see this... is this still worth buying in 2024 at £600?
@@cryptomaniac7655 Absolutely worth it, it's great value.
@@cryptomaniac7655 Absolutely, it's even better value now.
@@cryptomaniac7655 Yes! Even better value now.
As an a9 user, I prefer to use the Canon 70-300 IS II Nano USM with an MC-11. The combo can still achieve 10fps reliably with support for Real-time AF, eye Af, etc.
Shang-Hsien Yang Same thing here. And the combo is lighter and cheaper :)
@Foto4Max I have only rented the 100-400 a couple times. Of all the Sony telephoto zooms I only own the 70-200 GM
Foto4Max I bet the 100-400 is better. Well, it must be since it costs 2500! Having a Sigma MC-11 (super handy to try other Canon lenses) costs 150, and it’s not hard to find the Canon 70-300 for 400, so, 550 for me is FAR better than 2500 since I am not a heavy telephoto user.
@SwitchRich For me yes, perfectly acceptable. If you see the Canon lens review from Chris Frost you can see it is a very nice lens. I am not a super telephoto connoisseur and I bet that the 100-400 and the new 200-600 are better, sure. But also 3x more expensive, so, they MUST be better to justify the cost. In my case I have the MC-11 always glued to the 70-300 and it is awesome, and when I go on photo walks with friends with Canon cameras and lenses I can always play with their lenses too, so, win-win :D
@SwitchRich Yea. I think the 70-200 F4 is a better lens by far in terms of image quality and sharpness. You loose the 200-300 telephoto end, but you gain speed (F4) and "L mount" red ring goodness :D... I personally went with the 70-300 because I found one used really cheap, but if I was between both on the same price range I would definitely go with the 70-200 F4, but, again, I am not a telephoto heavy user so I don't care about the long range loss...
Hi Chris, great review from you as always. Thanks for the review and for sharing. If I may make a suggestion. For a telephoto zoom lens such as this one, you really need to test it at close range (test chart) as well as near infinity focus (photographic a football match for instance) to get a complete picture of its capability.
Value for the dollar is the main issue here. I think this lens would be acceptable in the $500-600 range but not for what is being asked for it. One of my favorite lenses is the Canon 55-250 for aps-c. It usually goes for $250-300 but bought my grey market copy off of Amazon for only $169. For that price (or even its normal retail price) it is an incredible value.
if this lens assembled in China it could be the subject of new trade war tarrif like the 35mm f/1.8, thus you can get cheaper in Canada
@@dadanardi5541 So another 30 bucks
@@randydietmeyer5883 for the 35mm f/1.8 it's actually has $ 100++ price difference between US and the rest of the world. The tarrif could make lenses 20% pricier petapixel.com/2019/07/19/sonys-fe-35mm-f-1-8-lens-is-cheaper-in-canada-are-trump-tariffs-to-blame/
One of the best test-reviews I found - Thank you for your critical comments 👍👍
Sony's new APS-C G zoom lens offerings would be awesome to see. I'm especially curious of the 16-55 F2.8 G. Bummer about loosing the APS-C photos for this one, but I think I have a feel for how it would be. Love the videos!
planecrazy2 I’ve heard that this lens’s performance on APS-C sensors is actually not great. What I like bout Chris’s reviews are the testing of FF lenses on real APS-C bodies, because as he’s shown over and over, the real world performance often is a surprise after looking at FF results. I expect that Sony’s new 70-350mm for APS-C will significantly outperform this lens on an APS-C camera.
@@dasaauto2024 I agree. It can be a surprise in a good way or a bad way. A few times I decided to pick up a FF lens for use on APS-C for the improved image quality or because a quality equivalent APS-C version didn't exist.
@@dasaauto2024 My experiences using this lens (the 70-300 G) on my APS-C cameras has been excellent. The autofocus at 300mm with fast moving subjects (wildlife video and photography) has impressed me. That being said used examples of the lens are fetching $1500 Canadian dollars and the new 70-350 can be had for $1000. For the extra reach and smaller form factor I'll sell to someone shooting FF and buy the 70-350. The $500 will go some way to the 9 mm Laowa I'd like.
I agree, the price of this lens is just ridiculous and the same story is with those new zooms for APS-C Sony cameras. Speaking of which, are you planning to do a review of them when they are released? :)
@Ziggi Mon how do you know canon is better ? remember the test done here for Canon is with fullframe 20mp camera, when sony is 42mp. That is why canon looks better. If you reckon, then you can try mount canon lens in Sony body to see if it is up to sony 70-300 quality. However I still think sony is overpriced, it should be at half or 2/3 of the current price at max.
I have had this lens for a while and I like it very much. Yes, it's not perfect but It's good enough for 99% of people. The mentioned 70-200 f4 is not as sharp as this lens from what I have seen in reviews and lacks the reach. The 100-400 should be superior in every way but much more expensive, big and heavy. So not ideal for travel.
Finally the telephoto! Thank you so much :-) when will you review the 70-200/4 you mentioned? And I can't wait for the new 16-55/2.8 review :-)
Please make a vid about the 70-200 f4! its very popular right now
I used to love this lens and think it got a bad rap, but I accidentally trashed my 100-400GM (and my RIII with it...) and have been waiting for Sony to give me an estimate of the cost of repair. In the meantime I've been shooting with the 70-300G again on the RIV because I can "gain" that extra focal-length shooting in crop at 26mp, and it's really night and day IQ-wise. From 70mm to ~200mm it's actually quite tack sharp for me, especially in the center, but most people are here for what it can do at 200-300mm and maybe I was spoiled by the 100-400GM but it's... lacking unfortunately. I will say, the AF is really fast on the RIV and the RIII. I also have the RII and it's indeed the camera not the lens.
Great review, as always. Thank you! I really like your objectivity and honest opinions. I'm becoming really tired and somehow unhappy seeing al those although fine reviewers, becoming slowly but certainly just selling platforms for the big names in the industry... I understand that objectivity doesn't always put a bread on the table, but I can't stop hoping that maybe, somebody still has principles in this world. I would consider to contribute some kind of subscription plan, in order to monetize your activity and help you keep your independence. Best wishes!
Seeing more positive product reviews shouldn't be seen as suspect either. The market is demanding that everything be a much higher quality than it used to be.
Another great review.. Good looking out for the UK. Thanks for helping me not waste money.
Honestly, it seems to me that literally all Sony lenses are overpriced. It's the classic razor and blade model - they lure you in with great looking cameras on paper, then rob you buy forcing you to buy their lenses. It's a good thing there's competitive third party lenses for the system that cost less than half the price. (I'm talking about you 24-70 2.8 GM)
There're a few exceptions like 85/1.8 and 28/2, but yeah, I think the majority of the lenses that supposed to be cheap (24-105 and 70-300 for instances) are overpriced.
This is why visiting used market is always a great option or invest.
This is what i feel too, after my sony a7r2 reached my house. Kinda sad about this.
Not a Sony user here but they seem awfully proud of some of their lenses. They make tremendous cameras and they have overtaken Nikon and Canon in that race. I still use Canon and did not have a lot of glass invested so I went with 3rd party with Sigma and IRIX but I am entertaining the idea of 15-30, 24-70 and a 70-200 in the G2 line from Tamron. I own a Canon AE-1, AT-1, RP and 6D which in reality are entry level compared to a modern Sony but I taught myself on that AT-1 back in 1980 so I have been a Canon user since then but enough rambling another great video and presentation by Christopher.
Btw, have you ever considered doing a series for testing vintage lenses on the Sony body? They can be adapted to the Sony mount really cheap. Could make a great series for cheapskates like myself. For example, I've just picked up a Canon FD 70-210 F4 (with secret macro mode) for £50 second hand, with a £20 FD-NEX adapter. A £70 alternative to this £1000 beast.
I've done that a few times - the problem is that the lens coatings were very weak and so they do badly in contrast and flare. Fine if you want soft b/w shots but they don't compare with even cheap modern lenses objectively.
What kinda sicko would dislike this guys videos he is the best reviewer
Don't judge the lens until you try it on A73 or R3 or any of the newer gen cameras
Great review! Thank you for your review it was excellent. Yes I had both and kept the 70-300mm. Main reason because I like the longer reach, 2nd because it is smaller and 3rd because the closeup distance is a alot better.
Also, the Nano lens coatings are amazing and I believe a better overall build quality . . .
G stands for MONEY.
oh yeah, overpricing with Sony products is a huge issue in my region as well (for example a6400+16-50 was about $240 higher than official announced price), and mid-range salaries is about 400 euros per months
Thanks for another informative video. Im hoping you will be reviewing the newly announced samyang 18mm f2.8 af soon. I know you liked the other lenses in that series :)
+1, not got high expectations for it due to the size and weight but I'd love to be surprised.
harganya masih mahal min , coba review lensa tamron
Great video. Thank for reminding Sony again to stop those foolish price differences between the US and Europa. Same for the A7iii. 2000 USD vs 2300 Euros. Even taking the taxes in consideration the gap is enormous.
And for this lens: it really points out the big problem with the Sony FF eco system. Great (somewhat) affordable cameras with extremely expensive overpriced lenses. Same for the 100-400 which is really good but at 2800 Euros way too expensive.
Fortunately Tamron joined the party. I already own the 28-75 and am really waiting for their upcomming telelens.
Wow Mr. Frost, very early review and awesome as well! May I ask you to review the new Tamron SP 35 mm f/1.4 Di USD? It is absolutely stunning.
I thought this was the new lens too, but this is actually the old FE version. The new one is 70-350mm
@@KhoaSV oh thanks :)
Thank you for making this video. I was actually considering this one, but after having watched your review, I think I'll just save up for a 100-400 to use on my A7 III... or just get the 70-200 f/4 and get closer to my subject.
Great review, did u test the new tamron 70-300 for sony?? I am hesitant between these 2 lenses. Thanks
Great review as always! Could you do one for Sony 70-200mm f4? Thanks:)
I compared this lens to my Canon 70-200 f4 IS on my 70D. Sony 70-300 OSS on my Sony a6000. My subjective experience was that the Canon had much better sharpness and color. Sent it back.
I own it and happy to use it .good light zoom for traveling .it is sharp lens and has great optics .Sony 100-400 and 200-600 are great but heavy and more expensive and I will not prefer them for travel purpose ,they are specific for sports and wildlife .
What camera do you have?
@@diegobeltran5394 A7 III
Not a very well known Sony lens. Thanks for the review as always Christopher!
As usual you make excellent review. Simple and efficient! I will be curious to see your opinion of the 24-240 f3.5-6.3 it is a lot of different opinion about this lens. I have not been able to test it in different condition to be able to see if I will keep it or not. My Camera is an A7RIII. Thank you.
USD 1200! The lens is good and it would be a decent offer in between USD 600 - 700.
Nice video. Bro do you have a comparision video for 24 240 vs 70 300. In the light that we need to know how good it can be for sports also. Flood lights and day shots. Plus portraits. Maybe macro shots for insects or flowers
Hi Chris, I wanted to know that which one did you find sharper, Viltrox 85mm f1.8 or Samyang 85mm f1.8 for Fuji (I know you reviewed the Samyang for Sony but I believe they must share the same optics, right?). By the way, vert practical and informative reviews.
Thanks
I currently use the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS nano usm II with the Sigma MC-11 on my A7 III and it seems to perform quite well particularly with regard to AF speed and accuracy however I was thinking of replacing it with this Sony 70-300 so as to do away with the mount converter but after seeing your review I think I'll stick with what I have and save some pennies. Both the Sony 70-200 f4 and the upcoming Tamron 70-180 might also have been possible contenders, again so I could lose the MC-11 converter, but the focal lengths are just too short for my purposes.
I would stick with the canon 70-300 over the sony equivalent
Excellent review
Price is not crazy for that long of a reach and it is full frame and AF and OSS. I would love for it to be cheaper, but is there competition at a lower price?
Look at the Canon 70-300 Nano USM let for their EF systen, which costs half the price
Hi Christopher! How would you compare this lens to the Tamron 70-300 Di Ld VC? I already own this for a Nikon DSLR. Apart from the fact I will have to use it with an adaptor for the sony camera, how would you compare them, image quality wise? The price is pretty steep.
Could you review the Sony 70-350, as I'm thinking of getting and I always like you reviews.
I forgot about this comment, thanks for making a review on it! I now have one of my very own (einfinity.com) I got it £200 off cause it's from the grey market (they import it for a lower price and u don't have a manufacturer warranty but they give u one)
i wish you could compare this lens to the new 70-350 on an apsc camera. thanks
if you're interested to know, the bird you photographed are a blue tit, a common starling and an oystercatcher
haha he said tit
I know :-) lots of wildlife where I live
I had this lens and I sold it when I had the opportunity. It is just a waste of money. I bought the 100-400 gm and that is a superb lens.
I currently have the Canon EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS II with a Sigma MC-11 adapter. The AF when on my A7 mk3 is really fast and IQ is very good. I keep thinking I should maybe get a native zoom instead but reviews like this one have so far stopped me. The cost of this Sony lens is prohibitive when you consider the reviews in general reflect the lack of IQ and build quality combined with a very silly price. I do have the Sony 200-600 G lens which is excellent so they can make top quality, reasonably priced optics but this isn't one of them.
Hi Chris. How do you think if I adapt the Canon EF 70-300mm lens to a Sony A7III camera body?
If I may ask a question, I’m starting a graphic design with photography course soon and will also be doing studio and fashion shoots.
I have a canon 80d and think the main two lenses for this will be my Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 art and Canon 50mm 1.8.
Would you recommend a sigma 50/85 art or something else?
I disagree with several points. First plastic does not mean bad quality. Tamron also use plastic because it resist well to outdoor condition. Two, who expect a stabilizer that would give you a complete static image on any lens?. The stabilization is equal to any other lens in the category. If you want static image, they have invented something called a tripod...i also doubt of the fact 5e autofocus would be unpar...i think several person would easily confirm that..finally the only thing i agree is the price is steep. I would see much more 800 US dollars, a bit like the sigma 100-400. The tamron at 499$ is very good value despite no stabilization (rely on ibis), and less of sharpness in the corner at 70mm f4.5. But it is extremely lightweight at 545g which makes it good for hiking. If the sony was around750/800 US dollars, it would be better.
I got a used Sony 70-300 lens for 699 dollars that the owner had only used twice. So I agree. At that price it's a pretty good deal.
Thanks Chris! Now I cannot complain anymore :-D the review i was waiting for :) Unfortunatelly - the autofocus is a deal breaker. I shoot extreme sports so the aperture was pushing me to the edge already, but unreliable AF sealed the deal. Thanks CHris, you saved me a LOT of money, but mainly A LOT of frustration :) I cannot thank you enough :)
I bought is used for 630€ and I am very happy with it on my A6400 and A73.
So it works just as the A73? Asking because I have a a6100
@@diegobeltran5394 Yes! Have it most time on my A6400 with excellent results.
It does seem rather similar to the Tamron SP 70-300 Di both in build and image quality..
How would you compare this one to Canon 70-300L? I brought L after seeing your review and then this one might be
Hi, Greetings from Canada. I am planning on buying a telephoto lens. Sony 70-350 is now cheaper (900 CAD). I also have my eyes on Tamaron 70-180 f2.8. but that one doesn't have IIS. Would you please do a review on the Tamaron and a comparison if possible. I'd be delighted. Thanks
need reviews of sony 70-200 f4 and sony 200-600
Do your prices include tax? In the US, the advertised price does not include tax. The tax that you pay depends on where you live (or really, where you buy the product), but could be anywhere from 0% to nearly 9.5%. I think in the UK, you pay VAT? Does your quoted price include VAT or not include it?
Da Iawn Christopher! Yet another great review, as I've said before you are the best at this across all TH-cam channels so keep it up. This lens seems to be a real let-down, it's not a G Master lens but goodness knows how much that would cost! As for myself, I'm more than happy with my Canon L glass and I can't imagine switching systems although I am considering an EOS R with adaptor to shrink my kit down just a little!
Lowkey I love your voice
i think i would rather go with the 200-600 from sony
I'm using a6k with 55210 and looking for an upgrade tele lens. Which one I should choose? 720G, 730G or should I wait for the new E 735G ?
Tony Tan 730
Did you compare Sony 90 mm vs Canon 100 mm ? Thank you
well said so true sony must also improve the quality of their products
Thanks for review
is this lens better then the Sigma 100-400? if you don't need the extra zoom and want image QT?
Take a look at my review of the Sigma lens :-)
you can blame the AF mishaps on your A7Rii, the third generation cameras are far better
wait for Tamron, half price better quality...
Lol we've been waiting for that lens for a long long long time
Tamron is 70-180 2.8
@Suzy Creamcheese tamron FE 17-28 2.8 is already in market and FE 70-180 2.8 is going to be launched in October
I can recommend the 18 135 Sony lens. Used it like 2 months now and Im very impressed. Super sharp for a zoom and Light as hell. Not the brightest, but ok for me, got the sigma 16 and 30 f1. 4 for low Light.
@@Baracudus for APS-C it's good constant F4
This 70350 Vs the 55210?
I believe the lenses Sony introduced are nice just that it is overpriced.
I would love to see that comparison but safe to say that the 70-350 would blow the 55-210 away. The 55-210 is softer than a baby's behind at the long end. And the comparison is really unfair given the price difference.
How does it compare to Canon's L series zoom with the same focal lenghts?
Pretty much the same, maybe a hair better if you get a good copy. When I moved to Sony, my Canon 70-300 L lens had serious focus issues with an adapter so got the Sony equivalent instead. Paid £750 for it on eBay and I think it's worth that price. However if your planning on buying it brand new the price tag is a bit steep, so I'd probably way up some more options like the 100-400.
i got the fullfram 70-200 f4
Will you be reviewing the Tamron 35-150?
No
@@c6fields Why not?
Chris mentioned a week ago that he will get around to it
IS THIS LENCE SUITABLE TO SONY ALPHA 58
The fact that this is a FF lens makes the new E 70-350 seem redundant.
Not really. The 70-350 APS-C lens is lighter (by >200g), has a smaller build, has a smaller filter size (67 instead of 72mm) and is less expensive. Basically tailored for the APS-C line-up.
Good review. The background music is distracting and unnecessary.
Which one sony lens for vídeo, not vlog, do you prefer? 16, 35 or other?
I like a nice 35mm lens for video work :-)
great rewiev
Which one do you guys recommend. Sony 70-200mm f4 or sony 70-300mm f4.5-5.6?
Apparently the 70-200 is sharper so some people prefer it
Christopher Frost Photography thanks
As usual with Sony, this is a relatively expensive lens.
I think the review dams this lens with faint praise.
Sigma have been a runaway success with apsc primes.
Are there inherent design complexities with apsc bodies?
If not, I am a little puzzled as to why Sigma has not sought to replicate its runaway success in prime offerings by offering excellent quality and attractively priced zooms.
Is this lens parfocal?
I surely miss the days that I'm single and pretty much can just buy whatever lens/body I wanted to test out... lol. Anyways, $1000 is way too high a price for this thing.
DXO Mark shows that this lens is sharper than the 70-200 f4. I love it on my a6400.
@Suzy CreamcheeseI'm not comparing them on an aps-c camera. That is just how DXO mark rated them. I do plan on going full frame. I didn't want to invest a lot of money in aps-c lenses. I'm waiting for the a7siii to come out. Hopefully it will be soon.
That is not correct, this lens has a score of 26, the 70-200 scored a 34. Dxo mark also mentions in the review that the sharpness on the 70-200 is better.
THE sony 24-240 is a much better investment than this imo. im waiting for the TAMRON 100-400 honestly as a dedicated telephoto option .
The “Sony must hate us in the UK” line that accompanies most Sony lens reviews isn’t exactly accurate. There are reasons why Sony feels the need to charge more in the UK to make the same margin on their products as in the US market, for instance. Currency exchange rates, laws regarding stricter warranties and customer protections and the overall cost of doing business in the UK seem to make up most of the difference in price. Sony wouldn’t simply “overprice” their products just because they think they can gouge UK customers-that would be a nonsensical business decision given that competition exists from other manufacturers there, just as it does in other markets.
I don’t know why people point straight at companies when products appear “overpriced” instead of trying to understand why just about everything is “overpriced” in the country they live in. Australians and Canadians do this frequently as well. I can understand the frustration, but it’s a bit naive not to take into account the whole scenario before claiming that certain multinational companies hate you. In the US we’re seeing a significant premium on recently released Sony lenses (compared to a Canadian prices, for instance) and this really has nothing to do with Sony hating us, but the absolute buffoonery that’s taking place in the trade war that our current administration decided to start. (Good to know it’ll be an “easy win,” however. /s)
Fujifilm XC 50-230mm f/4.5-6.7 - $200AUD
Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 - $2000AUD
Rent a Nikon body and test Nikon AF-P 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6E. It's 579 pounds on British Amazon. It would be REALLY interesting what's the difference at half the price ;)
Great lens
It’s even more in Australia
does this fit the a6000?
It will work. All e-mount lenses work on all e-mount cameras. Some cameras have smaller sensors than the normal 35mm, but the mount and functionality is the same. Lenses that are made for the smaller sensors tend to be sharper to go with the smaller sensors, but most full frame lenses are sharp enough.
Overpriced then?
Chilean Wine, Jeah !!!!! ( 1:43)
I like Chilean Merlot, it's popular over here in the UK
@@christopherfrost Great. See you.
Dude... Sony lens prices is the only reason why I went with Fujifilm instead. Practically half the price, while performing pretty much the same or better.
The only Fuji lens you could compare this to would be in the XF series and they are all considerably more money than this Sony. Where are you getting this half price idea from? The XF 100-400 is almost double the price. Even the 50-140 is $300 more, but at least a constant aperture.
@@chosenideahandle I'm just saying that even the XC 55-230mm can perform just as well at a lower price
@@ChairmanZhongXiNa you're comparing APS-C lenses to the cost of this professional full frame lens. You're not going to go run around in a rain forest with XC lens. Sony has a cheap tele lenses for APS-C as well (like the 55-210 for less than $400).
@@chosenideahandle yes but are they as high quality as Fujifilm's offering? All I'm saying is that Sony largely doesn't care about budget lenses, and the ones they have aren't as good as Fujifilm's
@@ChairmanZhongXiNa No, Sony's budget lenses are not built as well as Fuji's. You do however pay more, not less for that quality. A lot of people throw around how much cheaper Fuji is, but from my experience it's just not the case. I do love all their stuff though. If the 100-400 were affordable I would own an X-T3.
The lens body is made of metal, not plastic.
Thumbs up if you came here for the 70-350mm aps-c.
This or the 70-200mm F4 for a6400? 🤔🤔🤔
Peter Paul or 70-300
@@陈一峰-y1r my prob with the 70-300 is the barrel extending. I would prefer not. But i have to try both. Unfortunately there's no rent in my place :/
The new 70-350 would make a lot more sense on APS-C.
@@chosenideahandle i was considering that but reviews are not out yet. And im more or less will be upgrading to full frame. That's why i don't invest on aps-c lenses
@@peterpaul195 gotcha. I'm currently shooting with this lens (the 70-300) on my a6400. I find it works very well with the improvements in the new APS-Cs. I may go full frame myself, so I'm still holding onto my full frame glass. There might be more disadvantages than advantages if I go full frame because I do wildlife and landscape. I get great reach and pixel density with APS-C for wildlife, and I could actually shoot wider than with any full frame Sony lens for landscape because of the Laowa 9 mm 2.8. The 9 mm also accepts threaded 49 mm filters, and I'd have to carry around a filter frame system if I wanted a full frame lens that's 14mm.
you can get tamron for 100 euros
$1,100 and no focusing scale??? That is really disappointing.
Why you didn't use sony a6300 for the test?
I talk about that in the video
Hello from Kyiv Ukraine. Yes this lens is very bad and very expensive for something I would say is like a kit lens. I am a Sony shooter and for my work I use A9 and A7 III but I have the A7R III for some commercial work that would need the high resolution. Sony make very good cameras but the lens line up I feel they make very good lenses or very bad lenses and nothing in the middle. I own a lot of Sony lenses but I have chosen carefully by first borrowing a lens to try before I buy because it will save an expensive mistake. Thank god for Tamron and Samyang. Samyangs 85mm and 35mm AF F1.4 s after the recent firmware updates are as good as native for stills and the 85mm is close if not the same as the GM in my opinion. I am also very pleased with the little 45mm AF F1.8. Tamron s 17 to 28mm and 28 to 75mm are in my opinion better than the Sony equivalents and in a recent promo video I see there is a 3rd zoom lens to be announced which I think is the 70 to 200mm (or around that focal range) which I am excited about. The video also shows 3 other lenses which I think are primes. Let us hope Tamron bring to the table some excellent primes. I hope Samyang decide to create a 135mm F1.8 that will compete with the Sony.
I am very happy with the lens. See one of my albums: flickr.com/photos/26768348@N00/sets/72157675656796245
70-350?😶
What about it?
@@christopherfrost would it be good for full frame🤔
@@lomarvgc1580 Not really - the 70-350 is going to be an APS-C lens
@@christopherfrost but you could use it on full frame but you would just have 11mp, and a crop, and less deapht of field, but you get that 525mm reach tho, and it's cheaper, and newer faster af, and smaller..... You see my point 🤕🤕
@@lomarvgc1580 Then why bother buying a full-frame camera. Or, just use this 70-300mm lens and crop the image yourself
Why is it every reviewer needs to recite everything already known from the manufacturer specs, and tell us what OSS is good for. Hello? Just skip to the performance, we can read the rest on the internet.