Remains to be seen really. The usual sacrifice for using smaller elements anywhere in the optical chain is vignetting performance and PetaPixel didn't test for this. Dustin Abbott will test that though.

​@@JMurph2015 seen a couple other reviews, doesn't appear to have a vignetting issue. Gerald Undone covered it in his review if you want to look for yourself. It's really quite impressive.

@@JMurph2015 and don't forget Christopher Frost

They were likely only referring to fixed focal length. If you include zooms there's actually quite a few in most manufacturers.

@LindonSlaght True, but what company in their right mind would make a fixed AND zoom 300 2.8? It simply makes NO sense to expect that.

I would buy a small & light & cheaper 300 2.8 prime over the 100-300mm. I wish they make one someday.

@@mikejackson9585Of course it would make sense! Even if you have a 100-300/2.8 zoom, the prime will always be lighter, more compact and optically superior over the other. Not to mention there’s the price difference. Just marking checkboxes isn’t all there is to a lens.

@@Barjavel88 Canon avoids to make "me-too-lenses" for the RF mount. - the 70-200s are by far more compact than the competition - the 135 solely offers IS - the 100-400 is a 100-500 - the 300 2.8 prime is the only 2.8 zoom in the 300mm class - the internal zooming 70-200ish will be in the Z-line as the 24-105 2.8 is. I doubt Canon even thinking about a 300 2.8 prime. But they will make another (faster) tele zoom beyond 300mm.

Aperture alone is no comparison f5.6 GM / f 12.6 G. I am very much sure the AF and quality will be better on 300mm GM + 2x.

@@wingcreator 200-600mm is f/5.6-6.3. They're comparing both lenses at 600mm so the G lens would require no adapter and would be at 6.3 compared to the GM at 5.6.

IMHO, the 200-600 is very usable and sharp, and zoom is convenient in the field. But the 300GM with either converter 1.4x at f4, or the 2x at f5.6 works brilliantly. Light and hand hold able it is dream come true - AF is quick and accurate.Obviously ideal for long trips where weight and space is a factor. For me, worth every dollar! Barry, Australia.

I have owned the Fuji f2 200mm for a few years, and it is a joy to shoot. I got lucky finding an amazing quality one used. Its equivalent focal length with the adapter is 427mm. It also puts you at 2.8. For wildlife it does feel like it comes up a little short compared to the 100-400, but on cloudy days or lower light scenarios you can still shoot. However, its bigger and heavier. I dont have a monopod, but I really want one for this lens if you are going to be holding it for more than 15 minutes. I am really shocked with what Sony could accomplish here.

The sony is worth it over the fuji for sports and wildlife simply because it means youre now using a Sony body with 10x better autofocus

@@owengee7415 Exactly =) once you go Sony autofocus its impossible to go back to Fuji lol

Sony should have made it a 100/120 - 300 2.8 zoom instead of 300 fix 2.8. Anyway, at this weight as the old 70200gm v1, it will be OK if one has the 70200gm2. So carrying a 70200GM2 + 300GM is about the same weight as Canon RF 100-300mm which is not as flexible but at least will cover that ranges.

Nikon has the 400 f4.5 that is 220g lighter and does not need a teleconverter to get to 400mm and costs half as much. Yes this is half the weight of the Nikon and Canon's 300mm f2.8 but they are old technology. For wildlife, the difference between 200 and 300mm is seldom enough to justify a new lens. We will normally want 400mm+. The lens is still extraordinary.

An affordable telephoto prime, how did they do it!?!? Though it would be cool if they'd copy Nikon w/ in internal teleconverter.

​@@taylorhickman84me too, but that would have added a little extra weight and length on the back end, and frankly I think this lens was too far along in development to tack that on to the back. I would love to see in another couple years a generation 2 version of all of Sony's telephoto lenses with built-in teleconverters.. that really is a game changer and something that they should strive for in the future.

hey, its less expensive then a A-1 :P

@@RG-rm9jt I would like to see compact Sony 100-300 2.8 GM+1.4x, 200-400 4.0 GM+1.4x, 300/400 4.0 G + 500 5.6 G in the future.

Definitely, my favourite 70200GM2 is about the same weight as RF70200 2.8 (but Canon does not design it to use 1.4/2.0x - first in this class which has a crippling effect). 14 1.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.4 (not yet appeared in N/C mirrorless), 50 1.2 GM are lighter and smaller than N/C version.

Also usually optically superior as well.

The GM's tend to be smaller and lighter, but they tend to sacrifice IQ for it when compared to similarly priced competition. Everything has a tradeoff.

​@@wingcreatorthe RF70-200 f/2.8 can't use a teleconverter because Canon went all in on putting the rear element right up against the mount flange. This allows the lens to be more compact than comparable lenses, but at the expense of being able to use teleconverters.

​@@itsacookie1not really. More like software corrected. That why Sony introduced something like focus breathing compensation. Sony lens design language is a balance between size/weight/software correction vs optically perfect

I think Nikon already learned with their wide Z mount. 1,100g for a 400/4.5.

@@Ben_Stewart Z 400 f4.5 is a nice lens (I think around 1/2 the price of 300GM???) but it is not a f2.8. Not exactly Apple to Apple comparison.

All true but 300/400 I'd say it's in the ball park.@@wingcreator

Like Nikon PF 300 f4 and 500 f5.6 or Canon 400 f4 DO II.

@@wingcreator cool

It is fantastic with either converter on my A1 or the A9ii.

Nikon fan boy is raging hard 😂.

note that tc introduces image degradation as well so much so that sometimes cropping is better if its only for social media use etc. but at 6000usd jeez that puts it out of range for the vast majority of photographers. its a super specialised lens and even if its compact, you'll probably end up having to carry additional lenses if out on a field trip. still, id rather sony keep innovating.

It has been demonstrated over and over that the Nikon Z 1.4 TC impacts its z 70-200mm 2.8 to a virtually indistinguishable degree. I am so sorry that you feel that such is not true with Sony.

@@lcador9Im not really aligned with any brand lol I find it childish. Don't fall for the troll comments either. Lastly, all TC do give some drop in sharpness amongst other things. It's physics. Having said that, yea the Nikon z TC and Nikon glass continues to be top notch.

WOW Z 58mm 0.95 is 2000g. Also RF 24-105 2.8Z is 1300g (which is close to 300GM 1470g).

As a sony owner i want the Canon 100-300mm F2.8 you kray kray ... Just watched Gerald's video as well and he had significant flare and glare issues with his sony lens pointed into the sun

that Canon too $$ and too heavy for air travel. @@j.kimmer1509

Exactly, it doesn't need to be bigger than the sensor. SONY usually offers the smallest, lightest, sharpest and fastest focusing lenses.. It helps that they seem to have the best people working on the designs.

It's a running gag based on the weight of two Nikon lenses, the Noct and Plena. The former weighs a kilogram, and the latter about a pound, i think. It took me a while to catch on.

f/5.6

@@johannweber5185 That's pretty good.

PetaPixel doesn’t seem to over Canon in depth with video reviews. Perhaps Canon ignores them due to Jordan’s general anti Canon crap… 🤷🏻‍♂️

Still love using the 300PF on Nikon Z, not 2.8 and needs adapter but half the weight and can be had for ~$800 now.

100-300 zoom is much better than just 300mm prime. I have nice Sigma 100-300/4 EX DG for my Pentax. What a beast. High resolution even wide open, peaks at F5 and you'll barely notice any image improvement with stopping it down more unless you need more DOF. AF although driven by camera motor is very fast and accurate. Stabilisation provided by IBIS. Great telephoto and that range is also fine. Sig120-300/2.8 or RF100-300/2.8 must be even better.

The need of a 300 2.8 is very limited in our times: - those 100-400 e.a. take all the amateur needs in this focal length and are by far better in close focussing - the Pros are by far better off with the flexibility of a 100-300 2.0 for sports, events, ... - wildlife in most places need more than 300 mm reach - too long for portrait and fashion I do nor expect Canon to launch a 300 2.8 any time soon - and Nikon will launch another three lenses in the range of 400-800mm to plaster every thinkable need in wildlife and things.

@@peterebel7899 yeah canon is more likely to release a 300mm f9

Why not going for the 100-400 GM then? It's already 1/3-1/2 of the price and a lot more flexible.

A great lens I have just sold mine as it happens. Certainly a great option. The 300GM f2.8 is on another level though, a fixed focal length is key for ultimate quality. @@joeysnacht

Great, go comment on his video

Actually it was announced, last year.

@@adamadamis I mean... straight road map should be able to see like on this year for example. It's like hidding products to the last moment. You can not build something like that in one year, even if they would leak that a 6-12 months before release date, so there is no change for Canon or anyone to "steal" the idea and make it's own.. It takes probably a few years (3, 4.. 5?) of work to make such lenses..

@@pentagramyt417 None of the companies want us or their competitors to know what cards they hold for the future. Unless if they need to, to give reassurance they are committed. Nowadays I don't think they really need to, and a surprise release has more impact.

I just did the Orion Nebula on star-tracker with the 200 f 2.8 GM and really liking it, just waiting for this lens.

You must be on Krack naruto san. Canon has a far superior 100-300mm F2.8 Sony is behind at this point even Nikkor lens' are far superior than what sony has. Come out from under the rock ... lol

As a Canon shooter, you should have known they have a 100-300 f/2.8.

This isn't really a fair comparison, the Nikon AF-P 70-300 is just as sharp as the Olympus 40-150 in the centre and is half the price, for equivalent depth of field and noise performance. I use it on a Z6 and it's an incredible lens that nobody talks about. No it isn't as well built but it's still amazing

@@cyberwarfare9118 Depth of field is a misunderstood as comparison criteria. Unless your purpose is to get lots of bokeh and nothing else, light gathering is a far more important factor. That's where a wider aperture comes into play. To get the same image coverage in the same sensor area on FF, for the same pixel density for the image, you need an 80MP full frame sensor. That's why M43 is so popular with wildlife and sports photographers. You can get more reach for less money, or wider apertures for less money, than FF. Yes, a 2.8 FF lens can get more light over the entire sensor, but if you were to crop to the area the M43 covers, you would get fewer pixels, short of a rare few cameras, and the same exact light and physics for that area. Depth of field doesn't end up mattering often in wildlife photography. It's even less important in landscape. You often want as much in focus as possible there. Having the ability to reach further with a lens that's adaptable to the situation, instead of a prime, is also helpful. I'm sure there's a slight sharpness advantage with primes, even with the 40-150 being as sharp as it is. Yet being limited to one focal length is not ideal. I like the versatility of the M43 options out there, verses the premium FF calls for. The physics of light on the sensor are more complicated than simple aperture, of course. A 20MP FF sensor will look better in low light with a slower lens than a 20MP M43 sensor, because it has more light spread out over a wider area. But if you want the reach, it's a trade off. Then if you have a 40MP FF sensor and crop it to what a M43 sensor would cover, you're getting 10MP. Digitally enlarging this will look worse than the M43 native resolution. So that's where people find an advantage as well. In the end, it comes down to use case and preference. There are pros and cons to each system.

They're talking primes not zooms nerd

@jbird7782 then they should say that, friend 😉