The 300mm f2.8 GM can be put in the PeakDesign 30L backpack. That is the game changer.

@@ilove0530 I have tried in the 30L Everyday backpack and it certainly fits perfect. I will be carrying like that when I travel next month.

what an interesting idea!

100%

Glad you liked it!

it's uploading now :)

Yay!!!

Competition is good for all of us!

hope you are 1. patient, and 2. that you have been saving your money;)

Good choice!

I think so. I shoot softball games all the time and often use the 200-600G but most of my images from batting and infield are from around 300mm. Youth sports always suffer from bad backgrounds and the difference of that 100mm between 200 and 300mm is stellar. 300GM is a great way to go... It takes the 1.4 without losing all the light like with the 200-600G too. 420mm + punch it gets you to 630mm with better cleaner bokeh.

@@PMRTV thanks for the insight. I always enjoy your videos and insight.

The 100-300 2.8 is a baseball dream lens.

The new zooms are noticeably better, so they are worth the money. I don't like the image quality from the A9 or A9II. The DR isn't as good as the A7IV either. Just my observations. If you're not a pro, skip the A9/II.

You're very welcome

Totally agree! I think many people will see the $6k price and pop for it

I’d rather have a 35/50/85 1.2 lens lineup and that is what Canon will have in 2024. Sony has let Nikon overtake them as well with faster glass at 85mm. Canon users will be able to walk around with dual bodies on 1.2 35/85 Primes and that is something Sony cannot match in Event Shooting

All of the current comparable lenses that all the manufacturers have are all about equal in weight though only differencing in a few grams though lol. Sony hasn't had a 300mm 2.8 until now. Canon has had like... 3 versions. Maybe even more. They chose to go for innovation and make something new, and of course with physics there's no way the 100-300 was going to be comparable in weight. Of course it's going to be heavier. If they released an upated 300mm 2.8 it would have just been about the same weight as this. All of their lenses in comparable focal ranges as said are always a few grams difference. Just look at Sony and Canon's 400mm 2.8's. The EF version 3 was actually lighter than Sony's by 40 grams. They soldered on that RF adapter in the "newer" version and now they're the exact same weight. The Canon rf 70-200 2.8 was 1070grams. The Sony 70-200 2.8 ii is 1045 grams. Canon is simply leaning towards innovating in the lens department while Sony is innovating in camera bodies. Been like this for several years now.

​@@crshoverideexcellent take. I def agree with that. I'm a canon boy and don't see myself switching and spending 10s of thousands of Dollars to invest in Sony, but I like what they're doing with their cameras like the A9III. Waiting for the R5 and R1 to see what Canon has for us in 2023. I think they're lacking on the camera side. They need a replacement for the R and the RP and something above the R8 but maybe between that and R6

@@hikertrashfilms The 35 1.2 was coming 3 years ago. Sigma has a 35 1.2 right now. Of course the 35 1.4 GM is a gem and so compact.

@@juny1624 Yep absolutely. I shoot Canon, but I don't think it's too hard to be objective. I've really noticed in the photography world there is... a lot of insecure shooters who will argue till they're blue in the face to validate their camera purchases, and there's another crowd who hasn't used a modern lens in the last 5 years who will say that "primes are sharper than zooms" which hasn't necessarily been true in practicality for those same amount of years. All cameras and lenses of the last 10 years are fantastic. That being said though yeah like even as a Canon shooter I can say that Canon is behind in the camera body department, but they're making it up in lenses.

you can shoot tethered with any of the a9 bodies and the a1 as well. check out Tether Tools's website as well...

100%

No doubt ,APS-C quality at 6k !!

I used to have the Sigma 120-300/2.8 sport years back and it is the one lens regret selling. It made my 300/2.8 pick up a lot of dust. The 100-300/2.8 will be the one and done lens for sports photographers, a dream come thru. I just got mine in the mail 3 days ago and I am super excited about getting started with it in the new year. Got the 1.4x too.

thanks so much for your comments :)

100%!

I predict there will be many 400GM's for sale soon...

no DO optics. Crazy!!!

no but the 600mm f/4 will be better optically hands down. On the other hand, the 300GM with coverters is hand holdable all day, so there is your decision: best overall quality/bokeh vs. convenience and lightweight.

cool!

Thanks for sharing. You are the first I've heard of getting the lens!!! Congrats!!!

Zenni .com

@@PMRTV Thanks!👏

is the ability to zoom really worth an extra $3,000??? And do you really think the 100-300 will replace your need to have a 70-200?

greetings, O' A-mount shooter! I was once there with you and had the 300SSMII and 500mm too. :)

@@PMRTVIs the 300SSMii as good as I think it will be??

Yep I will def use mine for portraits

100%

Yes! People have been using 300mm lenses for portraits since the early 1990s, and certainly before. The AOV isn't as tight as you think it is. It's tight, but not that tight.

You mean 180-300mm 😅

Aren't Nikon and Canon the ones currently making new lenses? Sony makes the better camera bodies everybody knows this, but they're currently updating older lenses, or (in this case) adding in a lens that has been long overdue, but wasn't something new. That's not to say this is a bad lens, because it is an amazing lens. The weight on this lens is insane. That being said though to say Canon isn't innovating is just flat out objectively false. The 100-300 2.8 isn't entirely new as the 120-300 2.8 already existed. Although they did make it 100mm and also make it lighter and sharper. You're saying the 28-70 f2 and the recently announced 24-105 f2.8 aren't innovating? Other manufacturers have these lenses? RF 70-200 2.8 that's half the size of other 70-200 2.8s? 200-500 f4 being released soon. The niche RF 5.2mm that nobody talks about, but even that's innovative. I think Canon is pretty far behind in their flagship body department right now, but to say for lenses they're not innovating is just false when Sony is playing catch up on lenses still currently. Again even though it is the lightest (arguing sharpness is silly these days every pro level lens of the last 5 years is equal in sharpness)

​@@crshoveridenope. Sonys 46mm mount is too small. Sony will never release a 10mm or 11mm rectilinear due to vignetting, but Canon and Nikon use the larger 52mm mount, and these wider lenses work just fine. I will probably pick up the new RF10-20mm. So no, Sonys bodies are not better. And the A1 is too small in my hands.

those same folks told Sony they'd never be able to make a 50mm f/1.2GM but it's in my bag ;)

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/btB0dbOVnrO9aYU.html

100%

the weight is irrelevant for the most part. It's going to end up on a monopod anyways if you're shooting professionally lol.

My thoughts exactly….100-300 2.8 would get rid of 70-200 and 300 with two bodies. So only one body/one lens rather then two. Much better

Agreed I prefer the Canon 100-300mm f2.8 and if the weight is a problem I’d use a monopod or get in shape.

I would take the Canon 100-300 anytime. One lens one body. The point is get the shots. If you carry two bodies and two lenses, the combined weight will be a lot heavier

lol thats why I have the sigma 60-600

Just thinking, anyone with a 100-300 lens would already have atleast 2 bodies and a 70-200 + a wide lens. You any how have to carry them, As you are not gonna use 100-300 for other stuff than on field during the match. For rest of the stuffs you will definitely need a lighter lens untill and unless you plan to pair it with a 24-105 f2.8.

This body is for the Olympics 100%

@@PMRTVI agree with you Sean, and it’s an excellent body...but there is only a handful of lenses that can resolve well on the A1 at 30FPS...to go to 120FPS is absurd when there isn’t even a 85mm Prime that can be fully driven at 30FPS. They must be dropping the 85mm F1.2 in March of 2024 alongside the Firmware Updates. I own the A1 and I study glass, and I know that 120FPS would destroy the 24GM, 85GM, 100-400GM and others....

Still no R1 or a RF 35 L that was coming 3 years ago. Still no RF 70-200 that will accept a teleconverter. The R1 lost the quad pixel AF.... The fastest Canon body that can shoot more then 10 FPS redundant is handicapped to the R6ii and R3 24MP. Still no high resolution body that can shoot fast redundant (The R5 is handicapped by its slow SD slot and can only shoot fast to a single CF Express) . The A1 still rains supreme 2 years later..... I am disappointed Canon still has no third party options because for the price of the RF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2, (the only fast RF primes available since there are no 1.4s'), you are able to buy a Sigma DG DN 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 105 2.8 Macro for the same price of the two RF lenses. 2x 1.2 RF primes or 5x 1.4 Primes.....

are you saying I don't have enough hair? that's insulting!!! ;)

lol. To each his own trinity...

More likely 24-105 mm f2.8 and 100-300 f2.8. Two bodies two lens. Done.

I don't even know what sports photographers this was referencing. I don't know a single sports photographer who is using a 300, 400, and 600.. lol. 300 and 600 have almost never been used in sports. 300s indoors but that's about it. The go-to setup has always been 3 bodies with a short lens, medium range lens, and a super telephoto. So generally 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, and a 400 2.8. Meanwhile yeah Canon essentially replaced that or at least the 70-200 was replaced with the 100-300 2.8. There's an option for 2 bodies now, or even 1 body setups or still using 3 and just covering more focal range.

not going to happen fro. I don't lift weights like you do. I'm still going to use a 24-105 on my side of the court. Even if I did have the 100-300L, I'd gaff tape it at 300mm for hoops...

Is the RF 100-300 special enough that you'd stick to the Canon system over something like the A9III?

Canon 100-300 F2.8 versatility with the Canon 28-70 F2 and RF 10-20mm would be a dream combo on the courts and on the sidelines.

​@PMRTV you are using it like a professional vs Fro using it like an influencer for a game or 2.......I will say I do shoot football tournaments all day 8am-8pm with a 400mm and don't even own a monopod.....100-300 is great but Canon is behind in cameras for sports.

@@designsbydm1519 so are you saying it's too heavy for regular professional use? I can't see any reason how a 300mm prime is superior besides the size and weight, which for professional use seems far less relevant unless it truly is "too heavy" to handle regularly.

at $4000 more, I'd rather buy two more expensive lenses and still have a 52 oz. 300mm f/2.8!!!

@@PMRTVbut then you'd have to keep changing lens and maybe lose shots.... I'n not saying the lens is affordable, but pointing out versatility over having several primes ... Canon's RF lenses are a silly price, which is why I keep my EF lenses and use the adapter.

I did 19 years as a Canon shooter. Wasn't that enough???

200-500 f4 but close enough

wow, quite an imagination... 100-500 f/4 would be cool though!!!

@@PMRTV Canon is rumored to be releasing a 200-500 f4 for $16k. This could be a game changer for sports photography with far more versatility than any current options in that range.

to each his own but I'll take 51 oz. anyday :)