I recently go to test out the Sony 300mm f/2.8 lens a few weeks before it was released. Sony usually reaches out to photographers to try out equipment before it gets announced, so I thought I’d write a little about the experience and share some photos so you can see if this is a lens you would consider.
About the Lens
The lens is a fixed 300mm, so it’s not a zoom. The widest aperture is f/2.8 which is usually a good thing for photographers looking to allow a lot of light in (for lower ISO’s) as well as some slightly better background blur (bokeh). The lens will cost around $6000 which isn’t cheap. But also considerably less than a 400mm f/2.8.
It’s a GM lens which is Sony’s top quality of lens. These lenses have the best glass, coating, weather proofing, and overall build quality and optics.
What I Used the Lens For?
I primarily shoot landscapes and wildlife these days. When I got this lens, I took it out to a few of my favorite bird photo locations. I shoot mostly handheld and my settings were generally the same for most shoots. I shoot on Manual Exposure mode with Auto ISO turned on. The camera is on Continuous AF, typically f/2.8, with shutter speeds somewhere between 1/800th if the bird was sitting still and 1/3200th if it was moving. Auto Focus areas were mostly a center point in “tracking” mode, which means once the subject is locked on, even if it leaves the AF area I chose, the AF system still follows it.
My first outing with the lens was actually on a trip to Philadelphia at a local Audubon Center, where they had an owl (sitting still, but good chance to test sharpness and clarity), and hawk flying back and forth in a field for us to photograph. And with some of the trees changing colors, it made a really pretty backdrop.
NOTE: All photos were processed in Lightroom (NOT Classic, but using the new Local Tab in the newer Lightroom version). Noise reduction was done in Lightroom as well, and some minor distraction background clean up in Photoshop with the Remove Tool.
Shorebird Photography
I also took the lens to my favorite spot here in the Tampa Bay Area (Ft Desoto North Beach). For those photos, I’m usually VERY low to the ground to get that great background separation that we look for. A lot of people think that the aperture is what gives you this background. It is actually more to do with your proximity to the subject, the subject’s proximity to the background, and also how low you get to the ground (so that background is actually WAY behind the subject). If you shoot down on the subject, the ground becomes your background, and no aperture will through that out of focus enough.
So what does the f/2.8 really get me, over let’s say my 200-600mm f/6.3? More light, which means lower ISO settings. And it’s not to say that f/2.8 doesn’t contribute at all to the background blur, but for me, it’s a very small part of it. I can’t stress how important it is to get low. As for the higher ISO settings, noise reduction is REALLY good these days so that’s not as big of an issue for me.
What I Liked About the Lens?
My favorite part about the lens was the weight. It’s half the weight of the 400mm prime lens. And it’s much lighter than what I usually shoot with (Sony 200-600mm). Plus, it’s balanced perfectly. It’s hard to describe, but when you hand hold a bigger lens the balancing of the weight that is there, matters. You don’t want that weight feeling like it’s pulling down the front of the lens, and this really feels like it sits well in your hands – without pulling you forward. And did I say it’s ridiculously light for a lens of this size?
The lens also focuses really fast. It’s hard to quantify because we’re talking milliseconds here compared to other lenses. But it definitely felt fast and smooth and locked on even in cluttered situations. But keep in mind a lot of that “lock on” is also a big product of the camera’s auto focus, not necessarily the accuracy of the lens.
What I Didn’t Like About the Lens?
There’s really not much to dislike about it. Lenses are better, lighter and perform better in every way today than they did 5-10 years ago. So how do you say you don’t like something… it’s a lens and, to me at least, they’re mostly all the same. The only downside to a lens like this (other than the $6000 price tag) is the focal length. For my wildlife photography, it’s just not long enough. I can rarely get close enough to the wildlife, and only having 300mm forces you to get closer – and potentially disrupt and even scare away the wildlife.
For most of the wildlife I shoot, I need at least 600mm. And I’ll take longer any day. If Sony came out with an 800mm, I’d be the first to buy it and probably put a 1.4x TC on it too 😉
Speaking of a 1.4x TC, I wish they put a built in teleconverter in it. Nikon is doing it with some of their lenses, so I would have hoped that this would start to become an industry standard by now.
Will I Add This Lens to My Kit?
So the big question is will I add a 300mm to my kit? The answer for me is no. As I wrote earlier, for my wildlife photography the more reach the better. I feel like I can usually never get close enough. But sometimes I am close enough, which is why I swear by the 200-600mm lens. It’s a bit heavier but it’s sharp, versatile and continues to be my go-to wildlife lens.
Now, I could see some one buying this lens (Half the price of the 400mm, and half the weight) and adding a 1.4TC to it for some extra reach. Sure, the lens would become an f/4 at that point and not f/2.8 but that difference is negligible and would rarely ever be noticed.
But I don’t believe this lens is aimed at wildlife photographers. Not that some won’t purchase one, but I think its main use is probably elsewhere.
Feel free to ask any questions below. And stay tuned for a write up on the new Sony a9 iii. I got to spend an entire day with the camera so I’ve got a lot to report. Enjoy!
I love teaching and photography... In that order. I feel that enjoying photography, and photo editing can get WAY too complicated. So my personal mission (and favorite thing to do), is to create education that simplifies the process of taking great photos, and how to edit them to get the results you’ve always wanted.
I am a bit late to the comment party. My 300 GM just arrived. I also have the 400 GM and 600 GM. My question is regarding your impressive images in the article; are they mostly cropped and to what extent?
I got the 300 to use more as a walk around lens with a 2x on it. My previous light option was using an Olympus OM-1 with their 300 f4 Pro, (witch is actually heavier than the 300 GM). With the Olympus capped at 20MP, I thought I have room to crop into the Sony file and get similar angle of view I get with the Olympus 300×1.4.
Hi Don. I’d say in most of them at least 50% of the frame is cropped out. Sometimes the shorebirds are a little closer to me, so I don’t have to crop as much. But if it’s a bird in flight, chances are 50% (or more) of it is cropped. With a Sony a1 or a7r5 that still leaves more than enough resolution to work with. Thanks.
Hi Matt,
Did you try the 300 2.8 GM with a 2x teleconverter? If so, can you comment on the image quality (compared to the 200-600 at 600mm) and the AF speed? I appreciate your honest review and that it is free of hype.
This lens is best used for taking pictures of indoor sports competition.
How would this lens be for outdoor sports?
I am considering the 300GM due to the fact that my 2-600 always seems to not be as sharp as I am used to getting with other gear. I actually sent it back to Sony to have it checked and it came back with an OK. If I was to buy the 300GM I would use a 1.4 TC to get some reach. I shoot BIF in Northern Florida. What do you recommend, I want to love my 2-600 but its just not giving me what I’m used to. I shoot an A1 and A74. Any tips for the 2-600 ?
Hi John. I exclusively use the 200-600mm for 90% of my bird photography and I didn’t notice any sharpness difference when I had the 300mm. I guess making sure the AF was locked on and you’re shooting at a fast enough shutter speed would be the main thing that affects sharpness (not the lens). Feel free to send in or share a link to a raw file of a photo you’re not sure is sharp and I can take a look.
Thanks for the response Matt,
One more question. Wouldn’t the 200 with 2x converter at 5.6 be better than the 200-600 at 6.3 or the 1.4 at 420MM
Sorry The 300 2.8 GM with 2x and 1.4 tele
Not for me. It’s fixed focal length, and I’m perfectly happy with what I have. Nobody could argue with the results I get with the 200-600 right? So why buy a $6000 lens, and mess around with a TC and fixed focal length, when a $2000 lens works fantastic?
those are GREAT bird photos! Thanks for sharing them.
Classic line: “If Sony came out with an 800mm, I’d be the first to buy it and probably put a 1.4x TC on it too ?”
HAHAHA, so true. Great read Matt. I really enjoy your reviews. I think you hit the nail on the head with this lens. I too like a longer reach, mostly so I can limit my disturbance to the wildlife. These are concepts most don’t often consider.
Cheers,
Greg (@birdforthought)
matt so after the bird bootcamp per you suggestion I downloaded Lightroom NOT Classic on my PC. You said nothing was missing from what LRC has. So far I’ve seen do things I can’t find. I can not use two screens and when cropping there is no level.
Hi Jeffrey. I would never say “Nothing is missing”. There are hundreds of features different because they’re two very different programs. 99.9% of them have nothing to do with the editing of the photo though, which is all I (and most others) care about. PS: Yes there is a straighten tool.
Thanks for your review of this lens. I love the Sony Alpha 1. and I had all the big lenses, 400f28 and also 600f4 GM.
But if you need a lot of reach, always consider the interesting and cheaper alternative with Om-1 and the 150-400pro 1.25x. You get up to 2000 mm and can easily go freehand up to 1/25.
An interesting partner to the Alpha 1
Great pics. Well I am a wildlife photographer too, and I just ordered mine today. It will be a good addition to my 600mm 4.0. Yes I am one of thoses guys that carries around the big gun all day long, and I just love it, also with the 1.4 TC. I could also wait for the 400mm to get cheaper used, but I think that the 300 is better for me, as I would use it mostely in hides, where even the 400 might be too much as well as for lager mamals. And the 300 is light for traveling fitting in one bag with 600 and second back-up body. I would never get a 800mm though, 600mm with 4.0 is doing it most of the time in low light, and as said, with the 1.4 you get to 840mm with 5.6. So no need for a 800mm.
but with the 800 you’d get 1120mm 😉
I have a question about the TC. I have a Sony A7r5 and the 200-600 lens. I love this lens and camera!
I also have a 2x converter, which reduces my f-stop by 2 stops. I find myself not using the TC because of the loss of 2 stops.
Do you find that the 1.4 is a better choice for wildlife (birds) photography when using my 2 to 6 lens?
Great review and outstanding images!
Hi Linda. The 1.4 is typically always better than the 2x. For me, I won’t use a TC on the 200-600mm. I’m just not happy with the quality. I’ll happily use it on most other Sony zooms but not much of a fan for that lens. You’d be better off just cropping later.
Great shots with that lens I agree it not long enough. However my shots from the Bird Bootcamp look just as good. LOL
I agree. Wildlife needs longer most of the time. I have a 200-600 and 600 f4 – with or without convertors they are just great, if a little heavy some of the time. I would also buy an 800 if it existed.
I am waiting to see what the A1 update in 2024 consists of and any ongoing news of an A1ii if it ever arrives.
Meanwhile I am very happy using A1 as the main body and A9ii as secondary.
Keep up the good work, always watch your videos and info’s, Thanks from Brisbane, Australia.
awesome photos Matt
I must be missing something because I don’t understand your comment “All photos were processed in Lightroom (NOT Classic, but using the new Local Tab in the newer Lightroom version).”
I used the program that is just called Lightroom. It is different from Lightroom Classic. A bit much to expand on in a comment but I plan on doing a tutorial soon.
Please do. I’d like to give it a go but the problem is that I want my photos to be stored locally, not in the Cloud, which I don’t want to use.
Sure thing. If you use the “LOCAL” tab in the latest version of Lightroom, nothing will be stored in the cloud. You don’t even need an internet connection. It is 100% the Lightroom that everyone has always wanted.
Great lens review! I just recently was able to purchase my 200 600 so I could start doing more bird photography. Especially after working through your bird course. These images are absolutely stunning, so sharp! If I could only produce images of this quality… Thanks for posting the information.
Hi Jeff. You have the same gear I do, so you can do it. The sharpness had nothing to do with the lens and everything to do with the settings. You got this! 🙂
Couldn’t agree with you more, Matt. If I was still shooting sports I could see a lot of use with this lens, but for me now, I need the reach for birding. The light weight is attractive, but I’m happy with my “ slower” Sony 200-600 and love my Sony 600 f/4. Thanks for your impressions.
I enjoyed attending your two-part lecture series in Philadelphia and meeting you for a photography session afterward. You are exactly as you seem – a great teacher who is truly passionate about helping us improve our photography skills through easy-to-follow instructions. I have attended many lectures where the instructors seemed more interested in showcasing their own talent, but you were different, and I appreciated that.
The 300 looks and feels great, but I’m with you; most of what I shoot requires more reach. Hope to see you again in Philly!
Great review of the lens, Matt. The weight of it sounds impressive, especially in comparison of the weight of my 200-600mm but I do love that lens and, like you, can’t imagine not having the reach of a 600mm for my wildlife and bird photography. I have the Sony A7Riv. I see that you have the latest model…do you love it? My thinking is that I will hold out until the next model is available. As always, I love your articles and videos. Thank you for producing them!
Hi Amy. That’s a tough one. The a7R5 only came out less than a year ago. Given the life span of most cameras seems to be around 3 years you’ve still got some time before another version comes out. I personally didn’t care for the AF system in the a7r4, but if it works for you great. If you’re holding out for a newer version you’ve got some time to wait though.
Matt,
Thanks for the review. I had already made up my mind to pass because, like you and Bob, I already shoot with the 200-600 and the 100-400, both with 1.4TC. Plenty for me and I can still go out for dinner once in awhile.
Excellent early review. I rented this lens’ predecessor a few years back to shoot a Blue Angels airshow. It was perfect for that. My Sony 200-600 is, like yours, better for bird photography than that lens was. I’m at an excellent distance, and I feel like I’m getting along with the birds and being accepted by them.
Do you have a tutorial on the best camera and lens settings for bird photography using the Sony camera? I do a lot of birds with the Sony A7r5 and the Sony 200 – 600 and don’t always get good focus on birds in flight.
Hi… Yes. Click the bird photography graphic above for my course.
following your arguments this is a logical and smart decision, which, I guess many will follow
Great review and explaining best use cases! It sounds like another remarkable lens, but since I already have the 70-200 f2.8 and the 200-600 f6.3 I won’t be adding it. Glad Sony keeps adding more lenses.