Thanks for the positive feedback - I try my best - especially when it comes to putting in some time and energy to actually taking photos

I think the sharpness when using the 2x tele was the thing that took me most by surprise (apart from the weight).

Thanks :-)

Thanks - my own personal 300mm arrived a few days ago and I will shoot a triathlon using this lens next weekend :-).

My pleasure!

Thanks - I always try my best

Glad you enjoyed it

My pleasure!

Thanks for the positive feedback - that means a lot to me. Sony give me a small annual retainer for my work as an Ambassador, but I re-invest this entire amount in funding my location shoots. I could just talk-to-camera from a studio setting for an hour (a lot faster than going out on location for a week), but I would much prefer to talk to images the product is capable of capturing and use comparison charts. Apparently this is not the best approach for attracting a lot of followers, as many viewers prefer to watch a 'personality' pass judgement on a product after taking a few snaps captured on short outing close to their studio. I still, however, think I have the best job - shooting without a client or Sony telling me what to shoot or what to say.

@@AlphaCreativeSkills and this is exactly why I am happy to be a patron. Keep up the great work Mark. I'm in pretty much the same boat as David. I have 70-200 MKII, 100-400 & 200-600 plus the 1.4 but I'll be adding this lens to my kit and probably be good.

I offer Raw files for my Patrons to download so they can compare Raw next to Raw at 100% magnification. Job already done :-)

@@AlphaCreativeSkillsHope some patrons will tell me the result😂

Prime always win

@@yourongyang8901 I've seen the raw files and the image quality with the 2x in those samples is excellent. I think it may have an edge on the 200-600 because the f5.6 vs 6.3 would mean lower ISO and therefore less noise and I think the noise would be more of a factor than the differences in sharpness.

You also get to enjoy the experience of creeping up on wild animals. The closer you get the better the shot.

Glad it was helpful!

Unfortunately there were no A9lll cameras sent to Australia for review purposes. I’ll be lucky to get my review out this side of Xmas as I am heading of for an extended location shoot shortly.

@@AlphaCreativeSkills ah never! That's a shame. Was looking forward to it. Enjoy your break anyway!

I agree - I will shoot the 'Street' when I am in a city, but If I want to photograph the city itself I will mostly do it from 3 Kms or more away and use a telephoto focal length. Sometimes I can even photograph the city with a telephoto in the city. Here is a link to showcase the perspective compression: flic.kr/p/R6c3Ja

My favourite landscape lenses are super telephotos. FWIW.

Money well spent. Highly recommended.

Hi Mark, what is the type of membership to be able to get personal advice?, I once subscribed to your basic ($10/month) , but, all that I was able to get is access to your existing material, any question I would ask in you Patron site, I would get a standard response for the folks owning that website that was of little help. On another topic, I was browsing the Alpha Universe site, and was looking for you under Alpha Ambassadors, and couldn't find you there, I thought you were a member of that select group.

Hope you enjoy it! Still waiting for my own personal copy to arrive :-(

The 200-600 is a very good lens but the F2.8 requires that very large front element. I think Sony have done a good job with this lens (keeping the size and weight down).

@@AlphaCreativeSkills Happy holidays to you and your family.

What people think and what people can prove are two different things. Bench-testing 10 lenses and then producing detailed MTF charts is what you can prove. In real-world use, discussing the differences in sharpness between three G Master primes is, quite frankly, mystifying. Pick the one that suits you budget and size limitations because the differences in sharpness might not even be able to be detected when viewing the images on an 8K monitor.

It's available - check the Setup menu. It's not in the dial customize menu

Thank you. Found it on the A1 in the Operation Customize section

Lens choice can be one of our hardest decisions - I offer personal support to my Premium Plus patrons on Patreon.com/markgaler

I am now trying to convince Sony to let me have one 😉

Setup > Dial Customize > Function Ring (Lens). For full support go to Patreon.com/markgaler

Thank you ,now

Thanks for watching!

Anything released prior to the 100-400 GM probably needs to be updated if it is expected to keep up with an A1. The 100-400 was released on the same day as the A9, so it was already designed to shoot at 20fps. I have shot sports with this lens and have no issues with it. It can struggle when the subject approaches the minimum focusing distance, but as the minimum focusing distance is very close, it is not something that most sports photographers will encounter. A MK II version could probably be made a little lighter and with slightly faster focus, but they would not be the major improvements we saw with the FE 70-200 F2.8 GM II compared to the MK1

@@AlphaCreativeSkillsAs I’m in the market for precisely this, I’m glad to hear your perspective. My primary bodies are A1s (and I’ve recently picked up the A7CR) and I’ve been reluctant to purchase a major lens when it seems so comparatively old, particularly given what Sony has been accomplishing with its awesome revisions. Plus, now I’m seeing what the 300 is capable of and I’m definitely at a crossroads. I could see it finding a place in my bag far more often than the 400 (which I’ve needed to rent on two occasions), but for those instances when I need longer (often, and I’ve been getting by as best as I can with the 200-600), giving up even one stop is really tough to swallow along with some of the detriments (however minor) the teleconverters bring. So it’s basically get the 300 and enjoy a potentially more versatile lens, get the 400 but used to offset its age and the dent in my wallet, or wait for a revised 400 of my dreams. Difficult.

I normally only use the 1.4x Teleconverter, but I was pleasantly surprised to see how sharp the 2.0x Tele images from the lens appeared.

Mark's Alpha Support channel is Patreon.com/markgaler Advice to choose the most appropriate lens to meet a photographers needs is an extended conversation rather than a quick answer, as it has to take in the available budget + size, weight and IQ preferences of the individual photographer. Admin Staff for Mark Galer

My choice for rapid moving subjects is the A1, but the other late-model cameras are up to the task, so long as you don't expect a 100% success rate. Lens choice is a very personal decision. I have a lens choice video on my KZfaq channel or I can offer more personal guidance on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel.

Thanks@@AlphaCreativeSkills Mark, yes the A1 should be my first choice, but the A7Rv is the best next thing a used one... 4-axs LCD and a better autofocus...arccording to other users, a used A1 is still expensive in the Netherlands...and a 75/80% succes rate is good enough for me 📸

The A7RV has better focus acquisition but not as good as the A1 for AF tracking

The 300 with 2x Teleconverter has an effective aperture of F5.6 (F4 with the 1.4x Tele)

@@AlphaCreativeSkills Mark, you may want to go back, looks like you said by mistake 2.8 insteaD OF 5.6 around 11:50

The only way I can correct mistakes after I have released a video is to blur part of the image or take down the entire video. At several other points in the video I list F5.6 as the effective working aperture when using the 2x Teleconverter..

@@AlphaCreativeSkills I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of it , I think most of the people on the know understood what you were saying.

My 900mm tightly framed examples (2x converter in APS-C mode) won't give everyone enough reach but it gives me enough reach 99% of the time.

@@AlphaCreativeSkills Thanks Mark! Greetings from Chile.

That is listing the 1.4x Tele on the 70-200 at 12:03 for a local length of 280mm - one stop less = F4

Yeah - but just before that you say that the 300 + 2x yields f1/2.8.

It was an honest error and unfortunately can't be corrected now. I will try harder next time. You didn't mentioned if you enjoyed the rest of the video.

I like your thinking ...I would welcome an F2.8 135 and 300mm F4 for my light travel kit. I am currently using the excellent FE 70-200 F4 Macro G with 1.4x teleconverter to fulfil this role.

I wasn't invited to the A9II Party in NY - sometimes they forget about us 'down under' in Australia ;-) With these major technological landmark cameras there are no pre-production units for reviewers prior to announcement. I will await to see if Sony Japan remember to send me one. I think the sweet spot is 33MP and not 24MP as the keynote speaker at the NY launch said. APS-C mode is too tight with a 24MP sensor if you are always looking to publish 4K images. I may wait for the A1 MKII as my personal sports camera.

@AlphaCreativeSkills yes that is my thought to re 33 mp and being able to have some level of decent apsc crop. This is why I am now undecided on it. Rest of camera is beast mode though . Thanks for the reply Mark

I can’t believe they didn’t bring you to New York. Yours is by far the most critical opinion for me: none of the KZfaqr bullshit, for one, and someone deeply experienced and eloquent who does real work and shows real photographs for two. Plus you’re a huge resource for so many people. I love Sony, but this was a misstep. Either way, as amazed as I am by the A9 III in several ways, I too am still holding out for the A1 II, especially now that you’ve got me seriously considering this 300 over waiting for a 400 II. Whether it’s to the detriment of my reputation with the cool photographers or not, I rely on and appreciate the resolution.

​@@GilbertTang​agree, what mark thi ks of this camera will be a defining factor for me to either get 9iii or get the a1 instead

Thanks for your kind words Gilbert - I will attempt to release a preview video in December.

As far as I am aware (I too am waiting for my own 300 to arrive after returning the review sample many months ago) you can change the foot but not the collar the foot attaches to. No doubt companies such as Leofoto will manufacture replacement feet for this lens, if you are looking for one with an arca swiss foot. I rarely use tripods with these lenses so will just add an arca swiss QD plate to the foot.

It's a better option for me, which is why I showed the lens alongside the 200-600 and compared its size and weight. It is, however, a much more expensive option.

@@AlphaCreativeSkillsHi Mark. Did you find the 300+2x better than the 200-600 when it comes to both AF and image quality?

Much more versatile than the 200-600 (wide F2.8 aperture at 300). The 200-600, however er, is plenty fast enough and sharp enough at 600. I provide a DNG Raw file download service for my Patrons on Patreon.com/markgaler for users to determine if a lens is sharp enough for their needs. I don't do comparison bench-testing reviews as I am a working location photographer.

Thanks for your input - you may be someone who would enjoy my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel. An additional 30+ hours of Patreon-only video seminars + learning resources you can download (Raw files, eBooks and Camera Setup files).

Hello Milos :) I'm mostly using my 100-400 GM with 1.4×tlc and A7IV for bird photography (mostly small birds, sometimes owls). I'm thinking about buying a new 300mm GM lens, but I know that in 99% of situations, I will be using it with 2xtlc. When putting things like that on the table, do you think that it still will be an upgrade when it comes to sharpness and AF performance? Thanks a lot in advance for your help!

This was covered in the review.

Good to see this lens is finally shipping

Contact the tour operator to see how close they will be getting your to there wildlife. You haven't mentioned the camera you are taking and the ability to crop close is dependent on the resolution. I offer personal support to Alpha users on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel.

Ok, thanks

I don't have a review unit yet - maybe there were all at the NY launch.

That would indeed be interesting but that's never going to be possible for a reviewer to test if Sony send just a single reviewer product to the region and give the reviewer one weekend to shoot with the product.

…but sometimes we have to shoot at ISO 6400 and higher - so clean images without Denoise is not an option today

I own the 400 GM but think I would end up using the 300 more often as the packing/carrying will never be an issue

@@AlphaCreativeSkills Indeed! In your use cases it makes sense as it's more suitable and versatile and with a 50MP it should be perfect to crop in when needed.

I have to show my ignorance now and say that I don't really understand the difference between Fluorite and Fluorine coatings (the 300 GM having the latter). I was most impressed, however, with the sharpness of the 300 GM lens with a 2.0x Tele, as I have never really been a fan of this teleconverter prior to this lens (always opting for the 1.4x Tele instead).

Thanks for the reply. It is the results that matter more than specs of course. Out of interest, I find the 2x on the 400GM adequate but the 2x on the 600GM is phenomenal as long as atmospheric effects do not degrade it. Fluorite elements seem to have a profile of providing the most chromatic correction, ED elements are fluorite doped glass to give similar effects in maybe an easier to work with material at less cost. Some have said in the past that it required 2 ED elements to equal the corrections of one fluorite element. Thus I wondered if the 300GM was less corrected? Fluorine coatings have no optical effect, but repel oils and fingerprints.@@AlphaCreativeSkills

Thanks for the information (education). This lens is incredibly sharp (I also own the 135 and 400 GM lenses). The low weight means that I will now carry the 300 during those times where I have no opportunity to carry the 400 (I often travel with no checked luggage). I make Raw files of my lens and camera reviews available on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel (as well as providing camera setup files and eBooks).

I have done a 1-hour hands-on preview for the A9lll on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel. I will do a review when a production camera using production firmware becomes available next year.

I try

Would you buy a 135 F1.4 if it was as big as the 300mm F2.8?

I created a one-hour preview video on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel. As there are no production cameras or firmware yet it is too early for reviews.

maybe there was a Minolta A-Mount 300mm ...but this would have used old AF technologies.

Yes. The Minolta branded one, and a Sony branded one.

The equivalent aperture of the 200 F2 would be F3 at 300mm - so yes, this would be a similar look at maximum aperture. The 300 has lightening fast AF and will almost certainly prove to be a sharper lens when someone creates independent MTF charts for this lens.

Maybe someone will do one but I shoot on location rather than doing bench tests. My Patrons over at Patreon.com/markgaler can download Raw files captured with both of these lenses to determine 'acce[table' sharpness. In my opinion, a lens is sharp enough if the ultra high-definition image you are looking at looks sharp enough. Seeing the sharpness of two lenses taking photos of an MTF chart is a bit academic in my line of work.

...and in English please

@@AlphaCreativeSkills thanks To choose between: - Canon R3, 100-300 2.8 lens or - Sony A7rV 300 Mm Gm + an A7rV 70-200 F2.8. - Sony A7rV 400mm gm Which configuration to choose between these Three ?? For sports (football)

with one to choose between -A7RV WITH 300 MM GM + 20-70 2.8 GM -CANON R3 100-300 2.8 GM THANKS SO MUCH SIR AND BEST WORK

Sony cameras are noted to have the best AF speed for sport

For sports we can really only compare the F2.8 options. There are plenty of lightweight F4 options around for wildlife photographers.

I don't generally do these side-by-side reviews as I work on location. Imagine stalking a Kangaroo in a forest with two of these lenses and expecting the kangaroo to stay still between comparison shots. I daresay someone will bench-test them side-by-side in a studio. Very few people who watch this video will actually take the trouble to zoom in on the ultra high resolution images I am sharing (less than 0.5% from my Flickr stats). I also share the Raw files from my lens reviews with my Patrons so they can do side-by-side comparisons in Lightroom. I have only ever borrowed the 600mm as it is just too big to shoot hand-held for more than a couple of minutes and I don't work with monopods.

These are nervous wild animals I photographed with the 300mm. If you can't crop tight with this gear at a zoo (a high resolution sensor helps) then you are at the wrong zoo.

Fast aperture and fast AF :-)

The 300 can be a 600 F5.6 but the 200-300 can never be a 300 F2.8 ... that's the point. I don't test Canon lenses for Alpha owners who don't own Canon cameras.

Announced to arrive in Spring 2024

​@@AlphaCreativeSkillsif possible please make a comparison video between sony 200-600mm f6.3 vs Sony 300mm f2.8 with 2x tc.

honestly, not a single person cares about your opinion.

TL;DR: Canon setup: two lenses, combined 24mm-300mm at f2.8, $12,500, 8.7 pounds (3,946g). Sony setup: three lenses, combined 24-300 at 2.8 (but you lose everything between 200mm and 300mm), $11,100, approximately 7.08 pounds (3,210g). Sony setup with teleconverters: five lenses, 24-300 at 2.8, 98mm-280mm at f/4, 140mm-400mm at f/5.6, 420mm at f/4, and 600mm at f/5.6, $12,200, approximately 7.90 pounds (3,584g). Canon setup with teleconverters: N/A (see below) To sum, it's about what you value in terms of overall weight, kit complexity, and flexibility. Ignoring the massive holes in third-party RF support, both systems have arguably excellent native options. Live shows are a great example. The 24mm-300mm range is indeed crucial and worth it for many of these photographers, especially at a constant f/2.8, even if it means 23% more weight (provided it's not some marathon festival or the 12-hour wedding equivalent). Clearly, though, Sony is no slouch. Also, for what it's worth, 2.8 is indeed awesome, but I personally prefer to photograph live shows with much faster primes. It's definitely inconvenient and often requires a minimum of two bodies (goodbye weight savings), but the results are usually worth it. Still, I'd love to have 24mm-300mm at 2.8 as an option, especially given that last 100mm of range. And now my TL;DR needs a TL;DR. 🤷‍♂️ ------ The meat: While I think that Canon's 100-300 2.8 is pretty damn cool - let alone the seemingly awesome 24-105 2.8 they just announced - it's all about what you prioritize in terms of kit. The 100-300 and 24-105 cost $9,500 and $3,000, and weigh 5.8 pounds (2,631g) and 2.9 pounds (1,315g) respectively. Combined, these total $12,500 and 8.7 pounds (3,946g). Conversely, the same constant apertures and focal ranges with Sony's latest-generation kit would require the 24-70 GM II, the 70-200 GM II, and the 300 GM - plus you lose all focal ranges between 200mm and 300mm. The prices of these lenses, however, are currently $2,300, $2,800, and $6000 respectively. In the same order, the weights are 1.53 pounds (695g), 2.31 pounds (1,045g), and 3.24 pounds (1,470g). These make for combined totals of $11,100 and 7.08 pounds (3,210g). To the latter two of those Sony lenses, you can also add a pair teleconverters (1.4X and 2.0X) at a cost of $550 each, bringing you to a total of $12,200. These weigh 0.37 pounds (167g) and 0.46 pounds (207g), and sacrifice one and two stops respectively. Total kit weight is 7.90 pounds (3,584g). This opens up options such as 98mm-280mm at f/4, 140mm-400mm at f/5.6, 420mm at f/4, and 600mm at f/5.6. Canon also makes RF teleconverters with similar factors. They cost $500 for 1.4X and $600 for 2.0X. Here's Canon's current statement on lens compatibility: "This extender is only compatible with the following RF lenses RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM, RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM, RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM, RF600mm F4 L IS USM, RF600mm F11 IS STM, RF800 F5.6 L IS USM, RF800mm F11 IS STM, RF1200mm F8 L IS USM." I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether there are workarounds in practice, but according to Canon itself, these teleconverters are not currently compatible with either the 24-105 or the 100-300 (or even Canon's 70-200). This is definitely a factor in terms of flexibility and value. Either way, there are benefits and drawbacks to both setups. Personally, I prefer the weight savings, flexibility, and value even though I'd absolutely love for Sony to make both of those zooms at a constant 2.8 (plus lighter, with faster performance, and a great selection of on-lens controls for less money). If nothing else, covering that 200-300mm range without teleconverters is certainly compelling. Plus, I think Canon has a real hit on their hands with this 24-105 2.8, especially if you factor the power zoom add-on. Hopefully its video focus doesn't detract from stills performance. I doubt it will in any material way. I fully admit a lot of the RF glass is fantastic. Again, though, it's about what you value. Do you want to carry two heavy zooms for more money and greater focal range options in the moment (definitely useful), or three lighter ones for less money? Will you always need all three lenses all the time? That is, are there any scenarios where having two much smaller, lighter and less expensive lenses covering 24-200 outweigh having to carry both the 24-105 and the 100-300 at all times to cover the same range (and then some)? Similarly, are there times when you can get away just the 24-105 for most things? Or maybe you just want the 300 and don't mind carrying 1-2 teleconverters to maximize your longer focal length options. I can see arguments for all these scenarios and more. And what about space in the bag? Carrying two longer, heavier zooms might not always work depending on the bag and its configurability, but then again you don't also have to carry the 300mm if you want maximum range despite still maintaining some semblance of portability given its awesome size and weight relative to performance. And then I can't help but shake two key things: The first is Sony is incentivized to make these amazing lenses lighter while retaining excellent performance at a comparatively lower price, I think, in part due to the competitive pressure that they've placed on *themselves* due to how open the E mount is. Even if you only ever buy native glass, you still benefit from this. The same can also be said of their bodies when several companies rely on Sony sensors (meanwhile I'm thinking of the Z8 and Z9 with all their great updates compared to, say, the a1 as an example of a Nikon competitive advantage despite using Sony sensors). Canon's RF options are heavier and in many cases cost more overall and offer fewer on-lens controls. Some of that can absolutely be credited to innovation. The 100-300 at 2.8 and 24-105 at 2.8 are unquestionably awesome options, especially if they perform to Canon's historically high standards. But they're also realistically your only options in that system simply because Canon only doles out the RF mount piecemeal to other manufacturers. They've said they'll open it more, which is great, but it's case-by-case only, and it's already long after they've established a firm foothold on native RF glass at a premium. That or they’re using clunky EF adapters (though some have cool features like variable ND) and relying on older lenses that are even heavier and aren’t optimized for modern higher performance, higher resolution mirrorless cameras. Oh, and then add the old EF teleconverters on top of an adapter and it’s even more frustrating. The second thing I can't shake is that it's baffling to me that Canon isn't supporting these two cool lenses with their own modern teleconverters. Doing so would add phenomenal value to both. I wonder if it's because they worry about cannibalizing their many other supertelephotos, and/or maybe that they impose too much of a performance limitation. Either way, it just seems punitive to me. Meanwhile, you can add the Sony ones to your kit, vastly increase your options, and *still* come in at a lower overall system weight and cost without sacrificing performance, even if it does mean you're carrying and swapping more individual pieces of kit. So really, I'm not too worried about Sony's offerings at the moment (though I wouldn’t be sad if they copied the 100-300 and 24-105). I'm mainly concerned that they keep putting pressure on themselves to not just innovate and maintain these values, but to also add value to the existing cameras they're keeping in their lineup. Which is why I'm pleased to hear that the a1 and a7S III are getting some updates (especially content authenticity support), even if they're not at the level of what Nikon is doing with the Z8 and Z9. But then again, the question of Nikon is yet another 1,300-word post (which nobody will read). ***Note: All currency in US dollars. Also, none of the weights include tripod feet, which add approximately 1 ounce (29g) to each zoom lens. This is inconsequential for the purposes of this post.

@@GilbertTang With all you said: I do think Canon's impact to the industry of sports and event shooting with the 100-300 2.8 is enormous. So will it be with the 24-105 2.8 Z. A 300 2.8 prime is very "nichy" these days being dominated by 100-400ish and 200-600ish. I expect Canon not to launch a 300 prime any time soon - they do have the knowledge of market needs. Teleconverters are not used by those pros. A lens producer is not well advised to compromise the advantage of a close flinch distance and a huge bayonet diameter by a TC needing space within the lens barrel. All effort goes into performance advantages and weight savings.

@@peterebel7899I agree with most of what you said. Except, I am a pro and I shoot with pros. Teleconverters are an open, if dirty, secret. 😉

@@GilbertTang What gets dirty with TC work are the sensors ..... I have them, I hate them (the only accepted is the internal of the EF200-400)

So you have adapted the Nikkor 300 to the Sony E-Mount? How's the AF performance of an adapted 50 year old lens?

Affordable compared to an FE 400 F2.8 Gm and expensive compared to a 100-400 GM. Take your pick.

And all good things will come to pass. The good thing about Sony's e-Mount is that if Sony don't make it, Sigma or Tamron may just do it.

@@AlphaCreativeSkills i know but sony limits tamrom & Sigma lens's capability

That sounds like a conspiracy theory. In my experience it’s not the Japanese way of doing business. Do you have any evidence for the statement you just made.

Never say never. I spent 30 of my 43-year career shooting with second-hand or entry level gear. I borrowed or hired the premium gear when needed. Maybe hiring one of these lenses for a 'special event' will give you the experience you are wanting :-)

When you think about it, they are cheap compared to certain kinds of luxuries. A VW Polo costs way more than this lens!

That's why I spent most of the time showing viewers very tight crops on wildlife

I absolutely love this lens and can’t set it down.

I make available full-resolution images on my Flickr Pro account for the 300 and 400 primes. I also make available Raw files for my patrons on Patreon.com. I have not noticed any significant chromatic aberrations on either the 300 or 400 lenses - nothing that impacts my personal workflows. The 300 is a no-brainer if you are looking for a half-size, half-weight, half-price lens. The 400 GM is a must-have lens for most Pro Sports photographers using Sony A9 and A1 cameras.

Not sure what you are asking here. Do you need me to guide you to a camera bag review?

Pipped at the post by MegaMaster04

But when you adapt it to a Sony you lose the ability for fast AF that can keep up with an A1 - that would be a Pro Sports photographer's senior moment.

@@AlphaCreativeSkills Pros just take the adequate body. btw: You can't adapt RF lenses to Sony bodies.

… no, Pros will take the 300 GM and/or the 70-200 GM II and choose the a1 and/or a9 for their work , „mein lieber Peter“ … 😄 …

@@TW-iu9zyThose Pros will miss the best shots while switching between those combos.