A6000 FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Lens or the FE 70-200mm f/4

[Love to Cook]

I am looking to augment my kit lenses ( E 18-55 & E 55-210 )to be used on a trip to Alaska.  I was looking at the FE 70-200mm f/4, however now that sony has come out with the FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 I am wondering if that would be a better choice.  One of my concerns is the weight of them as the both weigh almost 2 pounds and so can the  A6000 hold them without damaging it.   I would be primarily using the lens for landscapes, wildlife and sport.    

[Reinhold_1]

1. I have tried both lenses and can recommend the FE 70-300mm over the FE 70-200 mm. The optical performance and features of both lenses are excellent. The FE 70-300 mm is lighter and shorter than the FE 70-200 mm, making them easier to transport. Just traveling a considerable advantage! The only advantage of the FE 70-200 mm is the higher (and constant) aperture.

2. In my experience, the main weakness of the otherwise excellent A6000 is it´s too weak bayonet. With the FE 70-200 mm I had considerable problems on a A6000 body. The FE 70-300 mm is now working without problems on my A6300. I like to add a shot of today (07/05/2016) that shows the great performance of the FE 70-300 mm.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

3. There is the possibility to let change the bayonet of A6000 in service. Then also lenses about 500 ~ 600g should run on an A6000 body without problems.

Have fun in Alaska!

[Zé De Boni]

I do not have a mount problem in my A6000, since I grab the lens rather than the body. With the 70-200 mm f/4, I hold the weight on my left hand. I find it comfortable to work with this combo.

I am also considering the 70-300. My concern is that it has no tripod collar. That will surely be a problem. The lens is lighter, but it protrudes so much at longer focals.

I see a problem with your other lenses, as they don't fit the quality standards of the lenses that you are considering. A better option is to get the Sony G PZ 18-105 mm f/4m and leave the kit lenses home. If you choose it, then the 70-300 will be the best indication, as you will get a higher leap in the longest focal distance.

And if it may fit your budget, a good idea is to get a new body, maybe the A6300 (or another A6000 at the current bargain price). Those two lenses mounted on two bodies can solve almost anything outdoors, plus you will be virtually trouble free with a back camera.

[Zé De Boni]

I said: "leave the kit lenses home".

Actually It is a good idea to have the 16-50 as a backup. Maybe I am quite neurotic, but I would no travel that far without the basic substitute stuff just in case...

[Golem]

I said: "leave the kit lenses home".

Actually It is a good idea to have the 16-50 as a backup. Maybe I

am quite neurotic, but I would no travel that far without the basic

substitute stuff just in case...

  

For sure. It's so compact, and deserves no

complaint about IQ or lens speed within the 

shorter half of its FL span. Nothing neurotic

about that !

[Cheatah]

I personally don't know the FE 70-300mm f/4,5-5,6, but the zoom lens extents quiet a lot at 300mm, has an lower speed, and costs more!

 

The focal length 105-300mm (!) on the APS-C  Sony A6000/A6300, with the solid built FE 70-200mm OSS is excellent!  I am quiet happy with it, and shoot a lot with it!

[yellojello]

Just checking in if more users have experience with these. I'm also deciding between these two for my a6300.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Golem]

I said: "leave the kit lenses home".

Actually It is a good idea to have the 16-50 as a backup. Maybe

I am quite neurotic, but I would no travel that far without the basic

substitute stuff just in case...

  

Read the OP a bit more slowly. He doesn't have a 16-50

to leave at home or to bring along as backup. He has an

18-55 which is the older, more betterer, kit lens, betterer

enuf to be a principal lens, not a back-up. 

 

Maybe the lenses he's considering are, technically, better

than the 18-55, but unlike the 16-50, the 18-55 is quite a

suitable partner for the other lenses he's considering.

  

His 55-210 is in the same league as the 18-55, and both

are excellent lightweight travelers. Notice he says nothing

about replacing the kit pair. He said "augment". I certainly 

find his choice of that word to be appropriate.

      

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

    

 

Also, if the new lens is augmentation, not a replacement,

then the tried-and-proven trio of body-plus-kit-lenses goes

on the trip. Always ALWAYS always bring proven stuff on

important trips, events, etc. No matter if someone thinks

an improvement would be wise ... it's only wise when the

improvement is acquired for routine day-to-day use, and

NEVER wise if it's for a special unrepeatable photo-op.

  

I'd say get the 70-210/4, or nothing. The 70-300 is almost  

as slow as the 55-210. The 70-210 at least brings a bit of

speed to the long end. And between a 70-210 or nothing,

I find "nothing" to be an equally viable choice ... it's super

compact and light weight, and also very affordable :-)   

     

========================================== 

  

If the Alaska trip is a special opportunity to justify buying a

new lens, the glaring holes in the outfit are two: the lack of

a really fast lens and the lack of a really wide lens. Either

of those is also easy to pack and tote around. But acoarst

nothing is so light and easy as "nothing" ! 

 

A speed lens or an extra-wide truly augments the kit pair.

Another mid-long tele-zoom is less an augmentation than

merely a redundancy. Another true augmentation, if this

trip is a gear-buying op outside the regular budget, could

be a second body. An a6000 or if you can find one a6300.

You put your kit pair on these and you never open up your

lens mounts to let dirt get in. Plus you have a spare body.

[janelux]

I might consider renting a lens for your trip, rather than make a hurried decision.  Several good rental companies online.

[Muditha]

Well, First of all thanks for everyone including Admin for approved me in this forum. I just bought my A6000 and got nice result with kit lens(16-50). I recently bought Kipon - Canon EF to Sony NEX E mount adapter and Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM as well. My primary body is Canon EOS 7D and now considering to shift Sony. I tested both canon EF 50mm f/1.8 ii and Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 with the adapter and not having any issue with both lenses. However I was not able to hang with them a lot, due to my busy full time job(I just bought them and shoot few test shot). Though I did not test properly I think my sigma heavy lens working well with small a6000 body. When I tested it work nicely with all functions(Of course kipon adapter is supported all function including AF and OS as well). Overall there is no any issue with the mount. However you have to handle care when you mount heavy lens. I am totally satisfied with my purchase. So if you are with enough budget try that adapter and any Canon EF mount lens. You able to get full function.

[markfireblade]

How does an a6000 (or 6300 in my case) handle with a relatively large lens like the FE 70-300 fitted?

 

Has anyone tried the Tamron equivalent?

 

Cheers

Mark

[Username]

How does an a6000 (or 6300 in my case) handle with

a relatively large lens like the FE 70-300 fitted?

 

   

As you might expect, it handles like a large lens 

with a smallish accessory attached. 

[markfireblade]

Ah OK thanks LOL...